o 





•A 



V 



SELF-CONTROL; 

OR, 

Life Without a Master. 



A SHORT TREATISE 



ON 



The Rights and Wrongs of Men. 

BY 




J. WILSON, Ph. D. 

Author of ■' Phrasis," " Practical Life and Study of Man," 
" Radical Wrongs," etc , etc. 



In those days there was no king in Israel : every man did that 
which was right in his own eyes. — Judges. 



Newark, New York 

COURIER PUBLISHING HOUSE. 
New York 
LEMCKE & BUECHNER, 
812 Broadway. 

1898. 

L. 



£ OF *'% 






Copyright, 1897, by J. Wilson. 



DEDICATED 

TO 

THE PRESS OF THE COUNTRY 

BY A 

MEMBER OF THE FRATERNITY. 



V:: 



INTRODUCTORY. 



This book is published for the purpose, mainly, of inducing 
men to open their eyes and see where they stand in their relations 
with their fellow men. In other words, its object is to lead men 
to think. The author does not propose to tell men what they do 
not know, but what they do know, when they take the trouble 
to think. One man knows more than other ordinary men only so 
far as he thinks and inquires more than they do. The germ of 
-all thought lies in every man's bosom, even in the bosom of 
every child. In too many cases this germ remains neglected, 
and so it continues to be undeveloped and unproductive ; in 
others, it is carefully nursed and cultivated, till it grows and 
finally bears fruit. A man may have a thought for a lifetime, 
and still not dreani that he has such a possession. Thoughts 
neglected are as thoughts that do not exist. No thought thrives, 
zno thought ever amounts to anything, unless it receives attention : 
it may come to the surface to-day, and never appear afterward. 
The lower animals think, but they do not know that they think, 
and the lower orders of the human race are precisely like them 
in that respect. An intelligent man not only thinks, but holds 
on to his thoughts ; he treasures them up and puts them out at 
interest, and they sometimes produce ten and sometimes a hun- 
dredfold. 



6 INTRODUCTORY. 

In this book the author is concerned chiefly with thoughts that 
all men have, but which few men recognize. The ideas that he 
proposes to publish are new only because men generally have 
given this subject no attention. If he suspected that no man 
before him ever had such thoughts as he is about to present, he 
would despair of ever making himself understood, even by the 
most learned and most intelligent members of the human family. 
But he knows very well that such is not the case. His task is not 
to tell people what they do not know, but what they do know, 
and what is indeed a part of their every-day experience. His 
constant appeal will be to the common sense and judgment of 
just such men as we meet in the every-day walks of life. Very 
much as St. Paul did, the author will "become as a Jew that he 
may gain the Jews." He will speak to the masses in the plain 
and simple dialect that prevails among the masses. His aim is 
not to confound or surprise, but to convince ; and having that 
end in view, he has no use for any "unknown tongue." He 
makes no attempt at display, in the way either of learning or wit. 
He has not studied to be odd, but he never avoids homely phrases, 
when by the use of such phrases he might make himself better 
understood. 

Perhaps the work may be said to lack system, or to be want- 
ing in completeness, but it must be borne in mind that a complete 
and comprehensive work has never yet been published. Even 
Humboldt's Cosmos, or Adelung's Mithridates, or Bayle's volu- 
minous dictionary, pretentious as they were in their day, 
covered but an extremely small patch of the vast territory over 
which the learning of this world extends. The best that could be 
said of these works, and of all others like them, is that they con- 
tained a great number of valuable and suggestive remarks. That 
is the most that the author expects to have said of this work. As 
to hypothesis, theory or scheme, he has none. Indeed, he has a 
horror for schemes that are deeply laid, and for platforms that 
are profoundly planned. Where is the scheme that was ever 



INTRODUCTORY. 7 

found to be a working success to any appreciable extent ? Where 
is the constitution or code of laws studiously elaborated in some 
philosopher's chamber that ever worked well in practice ? It is a 
well known fact that men who undertake to do many things, do 
nothing well. It is given to no man to know more than a few 
things, and even those few things he rarely knows perfectly. A 
writer who starts out with a plan, a theory, a scheme, and seeks 
to make everything square up to it, can never arrive at even an 
approximation of the truth. Instead of occupying his time in 
picking up whatever is valuable that he happens to find by the 
way, he is constantly on the lookout for some block, or square or 
triangle that will exactly fit into some corner of his wonderful 
discovery. No, the author of this book has no scheme, no theory 
that he wishes to have the public endorse or the government 
copyright. He merely presents, in as orderly a manner as he 
finds practicable, a certain number of important truths, and he 
asks his readers if the statements made are not in accordance 
with their experience and with what they themselves know to be 
true — and, indeed, with what they have known all along, but 
never gave any attention to or made any use of before. Many 
statements in the work may appear repeated ; they are repeated. 
In order that the reader may be induced to adopt or accept a 
truth that he has discarded or neglected for a lifetime, that truth 
must be presented to his mind frequently and in new forms, so 
that he may finally become alive to its importance and form some 
estimate of its value. 

The author does not expect that the ordinary reader will take 
up this book and read it with the readiness and avidity that he 
would devour an interesting romance. The one who takes up a 
work of this character to read for the first time, must make its 
acquaintance slowly and master its pages with study and effort. 
He, perhaps, will have to take up the book and lay it down, and if 
he is really anxious to know what it contains, he must take it up 
again and again. Every student knows that that is the way, and 
the only way, to become acquainted with a new book, having 



8 INTRODUCTORY, 

new thoughts, on a subject that is itself practically new. A man 
may be amused without any great amount of effort, but if he 
wishes to acquire knowledge, he will at least have to make a cer- 
tain amount of exertion himself. The author cannot create an 
interest in his works. That must come from other sources ; the 
effort must be made by the reader himself, or at least it must be 
the result of slow and uncertain growth, in his mind or his soul. 
Besides, in every case, in order to get a new idea into a man's 
head, he must make room for it in the first place by ridding him- 
self of some of his old notions. The difficult part in all such cases 
is not so much to get the new idea in as to get the old idea out. 
If a man really believes in God and the Bible, he will not accept 
as true a statement that denies the existence of one or the 
authenticity or inspiration of the other. What few ideas people 
have they usually part with very unwillingly, especially if those 
ideas have been pets of the possessor for a number of years. 

No one appreciates more fully than the author himself how 
utterly impossible it is for any writer to make people see what 
they do not and perhaps will not see — for seeing is one of those 
things that is largely subject to the will. Seeing mentally may 
be said to be wholly subject to the will. But it is well to re- 
member that the will itself is not subject to the control of the one 
who wills. Hence both seeing and willing are dependent upon 
circumstances entirely outside of the control of men. Would 
that the author had the power to make men open their eyes and 
see how monstrously wicked and unjust people sometimes are, 
even when they imagine they are pursuing a strictly legitimate 
and proper line of business ! They do not see it now, but they are 
sure to see it, or their descendants will, some day or other. 

Unfortunately for the author, the thoughts presented in this 
work are not only new, but they are entirely out of harmony, 
perhaps, with all that the reader has heretofore read, heard or 
thought in this connexion. Perhaps he has never thought any- 
thing on the subject and has never taken any trouble to inquire 
into the matter. No doubt most readers would as soon think of 



INTRODUCTORY. 



9 



calling the Bible in question, or of criticising God himself, as to 
call in question the justice and uprightness of their government, 
their state, the legislature, the courts, and the constitution. 
These have always been objects of worship on the part of the 
masses. Why should they turn their faces from them now? 
From infallibility to fallibility is a very long distance, and those 
who, from the cradle up, have been taught to believe in the 
former, are not going to face about at once and accept a belief 
in the latter without a struggle. This change, this transforma- 
tion, if it comes at all, must take time and come very gradually. 
For a man to cast aside the belief he has cherished for a lifetime 
and embrace another which is not only new but antagonistic to 
what he has always accepted before, it is necessary that he 
should be regenerated — he must become a new man. The 
preachers are entirely correct when they say that a man before 
he can embrace the new faith must be born anew. Consider 
how slow was the growth of Christianity, how long it has been 
undergoing a development which is far from completion even 
to-day. Consider how many centuries it took before the civilized 
nations of Europe consented to discard paganism and accept the 
new faith in its stead. For a long time Christianity was believed 
in by few, and even as we have it at present, it is far from being- 
free from paganistic features. 

No one appreciates more fully than the author what a radical, 
what a revolutionary proceeding it is for a man to change his 
belief. No man adopts a new belief and retains his old belief at 
the same time. It is hardly practicable for him to have part of 
one and part of the other, and if he attempts it, his hold on both 
will necessarily be imperfect. When a man changes one part of 
his faith, he must necessarily have modified conceptions of all that 
remains of the old. When people cease to believe in hell and 
eternal punishment, they necessarily have new ideas of God and 
his heavenly host. Instead of being a vengeful master, a despot, 
as before, he becomes at once the merciful God, the Father. 
When a man ceases to believe in the inspiration of the Bible, or 



10 INTRODUCTORY. 

of any one of its chapters, he has shown by that fact alone that 
he has lost his old faith and embraced one that is new. He is 
not, and he cannot be, the Christian he was before. When one 
stone of the perfect arch falls, the arch itself falls. Not the key- 
stone alone, but every stone, fitting in its own particular place 
and doing its own particular work, is indispensable. If we take 
one, or even one-twentieth of one, from one hundred, it ceases 
to be a hundred after that. So it is with a man's faith ; when 
he loses a part, he abandons the whole, and becomes a believer 
in a new doctrine. 

The author's leading aim, in this work, is to bring the reader 
to a realization of this one fundamental fact : that no man has a 
right, under any circumstances or under any conditions, to be the 
master of another man. Whatever else is said in the work, is 
merely a secondary or subsidiary matter, coming along in con- 
nexion with this general proposition or being employed to make the 
leading truth more evident, or it is something following after it 
as a natural consequence. The proposition, expressed in other 
words, is, that force shall not be applied by one man to control 
the action of another man under any pretense or claim whatever. 
This is the principle, and it is unqualifiedly true, but as society is 
organized at present, and with the conditions that prevail at the 
present time, perhaps it cannot be carried out in practice suc- 
cessfully in all cases. The most that can be done under existing 
circumstances is to approximate this desired result as far as possi- 
ble. Even the father should not be the master over his child — 
certainly he should never chastise the child in any manner. No 
teacher in school, no leader or director in any capacity, should 
ever presume to inflict punishment in any case. He should be a 
guide, a superintendent ; he should teach, impress, direct, but 
never attempt to force his will upon others, even upon the most 
humble. The teacher or superintendent might make his own 
terms, and the pupils might decide either to follow them or 
depart, but that would be as far as anything like authority should 
extend. A few years ago it would have been necessary also to 



INTRODUCTORY. 11 

put in a claim as strong as this for the wife in her relations with 
her husband, but fortunately, while she is still far from being 
emancipated, she is much less a slave now than she was fifty or 
even twenty-five years ago. 

The author believes not only in an absence of legal restraint,, 
but that there should be no moral or religious enforcement of any 
kind. He believes that the world can get along quite well with- 
out punishments, and even without rewards, except what follows as 
the natural consequence of a man's action. As he does not believe in 
masters or government in any form, he would not speak of 
rights, duties and obligations. Xo man could be bound by such 
fetters as these, unless he was under the authority of some one. 
and unless his position was that of a subject whose action might 
be controlled by another man's will. 

The author wants to make plain to the ordinary reader just 
what laws and trials are. and what government and legislation 
are. with ail the machinery connected with their operations, and 
he desires to show how they work in practice. He wants to re- 
move the delusion that prevails everywhere, that the people make 
the laws, and that without laws and government they would have 
no protection. He wants people to see and appreciate the fact 
that no citizen, from the time he leaves the cradle till he finally 
reaches the grave, as society is at present constituted, has any 
other relations than those of a slave to his master. He is a slave 
to his nurse when he is young and helpless ; he is a slave to his 
father until he is twenty-one years of age ; and he is a slave to 
the state during the remainder of his earthly career. He is 
always under tutelage and guardianship, and under the most 
favorable circumstances he is never more than a mere tenant at 
will. Incidentally, the author also wishes to have people under- 
stand what moral and religious obligations are. and how they 
fetter the ordinary citizen and prevent anything like free move- 
ment or development on his part. The author champions the 
rights of the individual, as opposed to those of the public, in all 
cases. He does not believe that any man should be compelled to 



12 INTRODUCTORY. 

make sacrifices for the public good. The rights and interests of 
any one man are as important to him as the rights and interests 
of any ten thousand men are to them. A man might love his 
neighbor, and he might not — surely, no law could or should 
compel him to love his neighbor. He might sacrifice and he 
might not, but whether he did or did not sacrifice, should be left 
wholly to the individual's own choice. The author would have a 
race of independent and noble men, as free at least in their ac- 
tion as the savages of the forest. He has no confidence in legis- 
lation as a reformatory power, and sees but little good in the 
restraining influence of government as it manifests itself at the 
present stage of civilization. He does not believe that law, even 
moral or religious law, ever makes people good or virtuous. 

The author does not preach the doctrine of rebellion, and he 
does not believe in revolutions which are to be rendered effective 
only by the killing of a great number of men. He finds no place 
for revenge, nor for the brutalities that result from a spirit of 
revenge. He has no faith in remedies thai are obtained only through 
a resort to force. He is opposed to war at all times and under all con- 
ditions. Force may change the relations of men and things, but 
it never changes character. The revolutions in which he would 
place his trust are those that come from enlightening the mind 
and changing the nature and convictions of men. When people 
can once be made to see how much better they could get along 
without written laws, without government, without punishment 
of any kind, and without intermeddling in the affairs of citizens, 
then all such agencies as these will be promptly dispensed with. 

It is hardly necessary to add that the author does not claim 
to be orthodox on any subject ; no man who does his thinking on 
his own account can long continue to be orthodox. The ortho- 
dox people are generally those who do their thinking by proxy, 
and who accept what other people say strictly as a matter of 
faith and confidence. But the author is neither an infidel, nor a 
socialist nor an anarchist, and he has no acquaintance or affilia- 
tion with any of these classes. He is simply, what every man 



INTRODUCTORY. 13 

ought to be, an independent thinker. For a half century he has 
been a devoted student and a persistent inquirer ; he has no 
interest or prejudice that is opposed to the truth, and he has ever 
been ready to accept any statement that seemed to him worthy 
of approval. 

If the reader does not happen to agree with the author in 
the positions he takes, and if he does not see the matter as the 
author sees it, it does not necessarily follow that the reader is 
right and the author wrong. It means simply that his thoughts 
have run in entirely different channels, because he has had other 
associations, followed other teachings and yielded to other in- 
fluences. Or perhaps it means that he has had no teachings or 
thoughts at all on the subject. 

What is here presented is the result of long study and mature 
deliberation, and it can hardly be presumption in the author to 
claim some consideration for the result of his inquiries. Having 
passed the age of threescore years, and having been a student 
all his life, it would be strange if he had not discovered something 
that was worthy of the attention of thinking men in this con- 
nexion. If he did not feel that he had mastered the subject, so 
far as is possible to master it at this stage of the world, he would 
never have gone to the trouble and expense of presenting his 
conclusions, as he has, in the form of a book. 

What does it mean when a man does not like a book that he 
happens to come across ? It means just the same as it does when 
one man does not like another man, or this or that picture, or 
this or that piece of furniture that he sees. It does not follow 
that the man who is not liked is bad, or that the picture or piece 
of furniture is bad. It means merely that they do not strike his 
fancy or meet his taste or preference ; they do not fit in with his 
wishes, interests, or preconceived notions — nothing more. They 
do not agree with the way he was taught and the way he was 
brought up. Perhaps instead of the discarded objects themselves 
being bad, or defective, it is the man himself who is bad or im- 
perfect. Possibly his taste is perverted or he is lacking in the 



14 



INTRODUCTORY. 



information and the training that would enable him to form a 
correct judgment in the premises. No man should condemn 
without being able to explain why he condemns. If he does not 
believe what he reads, he should be ready to demonstrate wherein 
it is false. If the premises are not well founded, he should be 
willing to show that fact, and if the conclusions are unwarranted, 
he should not be unwilling to make that fact evident or in- 
telligible. No person, of course, is obliged to accept the doctrines 
of this work, if they do not agree with his notions on the subject, 
but he should not declaim against the book, unless he is confident 
he knows more about the matter than the writer does whose 
statements or propositions are brought in question. 

The work has been divided into numerous sections or 
articles, in order to make it more acceptable to the reader, there 
being no reading so tedious and uninteresting as long chapters, 
with an endless succession of involved and entangled sentences. 
It will be found that all these articles are closely related and 
have a direct bearing upon the main subject to which the book 
is devoted, namely, the right of self-control, as opposed to the 
right to supremacy on the part of some individuals over others. 

The use of the pronoun "I," instead of "we," in a work of 
this kind, is unavoidable. In no other way is it possible to dis- 
tinguish between what the author thinks and asserts, and what 
his readers are assumed to assert or accept. 

In this work the author will rarely quote ; he will not take 
the trouble to publish other people's thoughts. He proposes to 
give simply his thoughts, his views of the case. He will not 
quote to strengthen his position — it needs no strengthening. If 
the reader has not full confidence in his ability to discuss this 
question fully and fairly, and if he is not confident that the 
author knows just what he is saying and what he is talking 
about, he ought to select some other book for perusal. The 
author proposes to give the result of his own studies and in- 
quiries, and he will simply report what he has found and what 
he knows to be true. He could name plenty of the ablest writers 



INTRODUCTORY. 15 

of the day who affirm, in hundreds of cases, the very same 
things that are affirmed in this work. but. as already said, he has 
no occasion to quote what they have published. His case would 
be made neither clearer nor stronger by so doing. If he is not 
believed when he asserts that certain statements or assertions are 
facts, why should others be believed who assert merely the same 
thing? The question in which we are all concerned, is whether 
the author's positions are true or false, or whether they are well 
or ill founded, and not how many agree or disagree with him in 
what he claims to be true. Suppose, for instance, that he asserts 
that every subject in a state is a slave, how much stronger 
would he make his case by showing that Herbert Spencer, and 
scores of others, declare the same thing ? Suppose he declares 
that right is simply an affair of the community, or is merely 
what is commanded by law. would he make the case any clearer 
or stronger by being able to add that Clifford, in his essay on 
Morals, takes the same ground ? However, he does not pretend 
that the thoughts contained in this work are his thoughts ex- 
clusively. They are simply thoughts that have come to him, 
but he would not deny for a moment that such thoughts have 
come, or will hereafter come, to other men. Xo man thinks 
alone, and no man has certain thoughts alone. Others will 
assuredly have the same thoughts that we have, though they 
may be slow in reaching them, or they may not fully under- 
stand or appreciate them when they are reached. 

After the introduction, the reader is advised to turn to the 
concluding pages of the work and read them carefully. In that 
way he will get a clearer idea of the positions taken by the 
author and of the doctrines which he advocates. 

J. WILSON. 



THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 



The only possible way by which men can see, and see clearly, 
is by learning to think. All the revelation of which we have 
any account, even that of the prophets and the saints of old, 
must have been simply the result of study and meditation. For 
the infantile, or the unenlightened or iminstructed, there is no 
revelation. Such beings are not able to interpret what they 
hear or understand what they see, and hence they are in no con- 
dition to receive and utilize what is revealed to them. Their 
misfortune is, that they have not learned to think. 

It is through the medium of thought, and thought alone, 
that the history of the world has thus far been shaped and de- 
termined. Without thought men would merely vegetate, and 
development would be, at least for them, a slow and uncertain 
process. The conceptions that men form of things are not of 
things as they really are, but as they think they are, and for that 
reason the same thing appears to no two people alike. If every 
man saw things as they are, all men would have the same 
thoughts and conceptions, but as a matter of fact, the com- 
monest hill that we notice as we pass by appears to no two men 
alike. It is for this reason that the stories of no two men agree 
when they relate what they have seen, though they may have 
been witnesses of one and the same occurrence. 

All the operations of the mind are carried on not with 
things, but our ideas of things — what is in ourselves, not what is 



THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 17 

apart from ourselves, is what concerns us. No one can have any 
conception of that which is outside of himself, or of that which 
has no relation to himself. All the communion and intercourse 
that we have in this world is with ourselves. When we talk, we 
are merely giving utterance to our thoughts, and for all practical 
purposes, we are talking to ourselves. Things for us are merely 
as we regard them ; a hangman, for instance, is either a decent 
man or a monster, according as we view things. To me he ap- 
pears in no better or brighter light than that of a devil or a 
monster ; to others he may appear under a more favorable aspect. 

Every thinker knows that thoughts must be courted ; we 
must lie in ambush for them and catch them as they flit by. It 
is only occasionally that thoughts come to us unbidden, and 
when they happen to come in that easy way, they are rarely the 
ones we are looking for. If a man desires light, he must search 
for it ; if he wants knowledge, he must labor for it. But when 
the desired thought is finally secured, the experienced thinker is 
never at a loss to decide whether it is spurious or genuine ; he 
knows, or he ought to know, when he has solved the problem, 
and when the result is questionable or uncertain. If a man 
knows anything at all in this world, he ought to know what he 
knows, and as a usual thing, the sound and careful reasoner does 
know that much. 

The more clearly we come to understand the nature and 
power of intellect, the better we shall perceive that if there is 
really any such thing as power in this world, there is more of it 
in the mind than in the body. Without the mind, the body 
would be like any other mass of inanimate matter ; life is not a 
matter of flesh and bones, but of spirit, or of the mind. The 
Latin animus and anima are the same word in different genders, 
and these words signify spirit, soul, life, and mind, showing that 
these ideas belong in the same category and arise from the same 
conception. Without the head to guide and impel the body, it 
would have no more power to move than a piece of wood would 
have. When the spirit departs and the mind ceases to act, the 



18 THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 

body becomes simply a corpse, and we speak of it not as the man 
himself, but his remains. It is through intellect, study, investi- 
gation and meditation alone that this world is moved at the 
present day, and the less of these things there are in the world, 
the less it will move, and the less will be finally accomplished. 
Years since when there was relatively less intellect than there is 
now, the body counted for more than it does at present. Now a 
few rule the many, and they do so through the powerful advan- 
tage which the intellect affords them. Again. I would impress 
upon the reader that it is not physical power in any literal sense 
that rules and moves this world, but the mind, the intellect, 
the spirit. 

It is well known that this world is now controlled chiefly 
by contrivances, discoveries, inventions — and the work is all 
done as the result of thought, prevision and prudence. Those 
who will not take the trouble to think and reflect, must be con- 
tent to be the servants or slaves of those who will. Under the 
present condition of things, one man, with the help of his 
machine, counts as much as a thousand men without one. 
Numbers in this world are an insignificant factor ; the really 
important question with regard to a man, is what can he accom- 
plish and how much does he weigh. The man who can combine 
and utilize the most forces, who can bring to his aid the powers 
not only of man but nature, is the one who counts the most. Such 
men are always the rulers of the world. A man might be forty 
cubits high and ten cubits broad, and still he would be far from 
being a great man. Such a man would be a monster and en- 
tirely out of place ; there would be no room in which to put him 
and he would not know what to do with himself. Napoleon, 
Caesar and Alexander, the greatest heroes of at least three thou- 
sand years, were very far from being giants in form and body. 

Great men, strong men, are those who utilize all forces, not 
only those that come within their reach, but those that have 
been brought within it ; they bring into subjection not only 
men, but the wind, the waves and the powers of nature gener- 



THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 



19 



ally. What would an army of 500,000 men accomplish, if they 
did not hare one head and a common end in view ? Individ- 
uals do the work, but alone they ne^er count. It is the accumula- 
tion of forces, not the multiplication of forces that makes men 
strong ; alone, units never count more than one, no matter if 
there is a million of them, but taken in combination they may 
count any number that one may choose to name. It is in this 
simple way that a few shrewd, practical, persevering men who 
possess this great power of combination and utilization, over- 
reach and bring into subjection the multitude. The rich man, 
the practical business man, is always ready to avail himself of 
privileges, opportunities and advantages ; but the poor and un- 
fortunate man never bothers his head about looking either 
forward or backward ; he never thinks, never minds, never 
studies, never works, at least never in a determined, sensible and 
effective way ; and as one might expect, lie never prospers. The 
xich are backed up in all they do by the overwhelming power 
of the state ; such an ally as this not only encourages but 
strengthens them. The rich are wise and see things before they 
happen, and they often provide ways and means that render it 
certain that they will happen, but the poor and unfortunate 
never make a practice of looking ahead, and consequently they 
never see things till after they have happened, and then it is 
often too late to put forth efforts for any purpose or with any 
aim in view. It might be added that what the rich and the 
prosperous do is always done quietly, decently, legally. They 
never avail themselves of privileges that do not come to them by 
right. They accomplish the most, in the way of carrying out 
their plans, through the medium of law. Such laws look simple 
and harmless enough when they are being enacted, but the ful- 
ness of their effect is never realized till some time afterward. 
By that time the fetters have been riveted and resistance on the 
part of the poor and helpless is impossible or impracticable. 
The strongest giant in the world can be rendered, even by pig- 
mies, as helpless as an infant, if he allows them to carefully, 



20 



THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 



slowly and firmly bind him hand and foot. This binding, subju- 
gating process is going on continually whenever and wherever laws are 
made. But the time, if ever, for people to act, is before they are- 
bound and while they are free ; of course, after they have been 
rendered powerless, efforts will be of no avail. 

The achievements of the intellect in the present generation 
are really amazing, but it is highly probable that they will be 
far surpassed by the achievements of the future. There seems to 
be no limit to what may be accomplished through inquiry and 
reflection. For centuries we have been passing through the 
infantile and youthful stages of judgment and thought, but now 
we seem to be approaching a stage that is characterized by fea- 
tures that indicate maturity. With the help of the press, the 
results of mental effort are not only registered and preserved, 
but they are accumulated, and the consequence is that each- 
generation does not begin anew, but takes up the work where 
the preceding generation left off. At the present time men do 
miracles every day, but they are miracles that come in the 
natural course of things, and there is nothing about them that is 
in any way providential. By understanding and remembering 
the past, we decide with astonishing certainty what will happen 
in the future. Any man may be a prophet who has the ability 
to learn and who can put into practice the lessons taught by ex- 
perience. The soothsayers and prophets which they had in olden 
times were very much such soothsayers and prophets as they 
have at the present day — men who have learned in some way a 
great many important facts and who have the talent and the skill 
to use these facts to the highest advantage. The feats of legerde- 
main are simple and easy enough, like all other feats, when you 
know just how the trick is played. There is no question that in 
the past, as at present, there was always much delusion connected 
with all the performances that were claimed to be miraculous. 
The replies sent out by the oracles in pagan times were usually 
ambiguous, and almost any turn that affairs might take could be 
considered as a fulfilment of the prophecy. 



THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 



21 



It is evident enough that civilized men are passing now into 
:an entirely new phase of development. When people were young 
and in the infantile stage they needed a God to serve as a master, 
a, leader and a champion for them ; they needed a Bible, a religion 
and a code of morals in which every step necessary to be taken, 
even the most insignificant, was fully explained and clearly pre- 
scribed. The case is different now ; men have minds, intellect 
and experience and they receive instruction from a multitude of 
new sources. They have no use at present for either a God or a 
Bible ; even religious observances they might dispense with, if 
they chose to do so, and as to a code of morals, they could get along 
very well without any such restrictions as those. To sum up the 
whole matter, man, civilized man, is at last nearly of age, and he 
can now dispense with all guardians, tutors and preceptors of 
-every name and description. Sink or swim, live or die, he will 
at least be his own master. He does not imagine that he will be 
dependent upon any one for assistance, but if he happens to fall 
or faint by the way, it will be time enough to lend him a helping- 
hand when he calls for it. 

We have been noticing a few things that thought, inquiry 
and knowledge can accomplish, but it would take a great many 
more pages to enable the writer to give a fair view of the evils 
and miseries which inattention, want of reflection, and ignorance 
bring to the people of this world. It is well known by all that 
•one of the leading difficulties experienced at the present day, lies 
in the people's repugnance to anything like inquiry, or to any- 
thing that requires study and reflection. Men usually know 
-enough, but, as a general thing, they persistently refuse to put 
what they know into practice. People know very well, for in- 
stance, that what is called the government or state is merely the 
men who happen to be in power — just such men as we meet in 
our walks every day. There is no other kind of state to be found 
on this planet, and when we speak of the state, we always mean 
simply the men who happen to be placed in control of the or- 
dinary affairs of state. This fact being conceded, as it must be, 



22 



THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 



does it noc seem strange that men should still believe in the in- 
fallibility of the state, just as a century ago men believed in the 
infallibility of the king ? It is a very serious mistake to assume, 
as most men do, that what the state does must necessarily be 
right. The fact is that the state would do a villainous act sooner 
than an individual would, because in the state so many are usu- 
ally involved that one can easily escape by casting the blame 
upon others. If people would only take the trouble to examine 
and consider, they would be sure to get new views of state infalli- 
bility and state sanctity. 

Edward Carpenter says, in "Civilization — its Cause and 
Cure:" 4 ' The institution of government is in fact the evidence 
in social life that man has lost his inner and central control, and 
therefore must resort to an outward one. Losing touch with the 
inward man who is his true guide, he leans upon an external law, 
which must always be false." This is exactly the truth as it is 
and it indicates just where the fundamental error lies. We do 
not wish to do anything ourselves — we leave everything to be 
done by the government. The state as it is now takes precisely 
the place that the church held in the 15th century. The state 
even does most of our thinking for us, and so we do not have 
occasion to bother ourselves with such trifling matters. The state 
decides what is right and what is wrong, and we are never 
obliged to stop to ask any questions on such subjects. We are all 
so busy making money, collecting our interest and cutting off 
coupons, that we really have no time to consider other matters. 
The state is our banker ; it receives our money, in the form of 
taxes, and it disburses it according to its own judgment or fancy. 
When we are sick, the state provides hospitals, nurses and 
doctors for us, and the expense to us is nothing, or merely a 
nominal sum. The state furnishes a liberal education for our 
children, with magnificent schoolhouses and handsomely illus- 
trated school books, and the cost to the people is hardly worth 
mentioning. The state takes care of our deaf mutes, our idiots, 
our crazy people, and harbors them in most hospitable fashion — 



THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 23 

for all of which, apparently, the people have little or nothing to 
pay. The state also looks after our mails, and in some countries 
after railroads, telegraphs and insurance, the apparent cost of 
which to the public is a mere trifle. The state has policemen and 
soldiers for our protection ; it has prisons and courts and jails, all 
these things being as free as air. The state, likewise, sends around 
factory inspectors, butter inspectors, railroad inspectors, the de- 
sign being to see that we make no mistakes in the way that we 
do business — for all which, of course, no charge is made. The 
state governs both ourselves and our families, thus relieving us of 
a wonderful amount of responsibility, and not a cent is charged 
for the services thus rendered. Why in the world should not 
everybody be happy? What is to hinder people from enjoying 
themselves all the day long, where everything, as I have indi- 
cated, is done by the state ? 

Here is, seemingly, one case where people can dance and yet 
they do not have to pay the fiddler. But here, as in so many 
other cases, people are laboring under a delusion. They will find 
at last that they have to pay very dear for the help of the state. 
They have simply sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. 
They have sold their freedom and become merely the government's 
slaves. It is hard, we know, to make people accept this unpala- 
table truth, but they are sure to appreciate it later on — or at least 
their sons will, most assuredly. When a man finally gets into 
such a condition that he does not want to take care of himself, he 
will always come across some one in the end who will be ready to 
undertake the job for him. But he will also find sooner or later, 
what every man finds, that protection is both dangerous and expensive. 
The people who are enjoying so many delightful things at the ex- 
pense of the state, ought to be able to see that the cost of these 
things must come out of somebody's pocket. Quite certain it is 
that the state itself does not bear the expense. The state resem- 
bles the officers of our loan associations, who never pay out a cent 
of their own money, but who are adepts at handling the money 
of other folks. To sum the matter all up in a very few words : 



24 THE POWER OF THOUGHT. 

Every dollar that the state pays out under any circumstances, or for any 
purpose, comes from the pockets of the people in some form. The peo- 
ple have to pay very dearly for everything they get from the 
state. 

Strange as it may seem to be, one of the last things that the 
people of this country ever come to consider, is the management 
of the affairs of their government. And yet, is it not the govern- 
ment that settles our destiny, and determines, to a large extent, 
the course of life which we are compelled to pursue ? It is the 
government that makes the laws that absolutely control the af- 
fairs of society, and the power that makes the laws, controls 
everything. But are governments known to be so honest and so 
unselfish, that they never need either supervision or attention ? It 
is well understood that those who are in control of governmental 
affairs always resent propositions that involve inquiry and inves- 
tigation into their conduct, but it often happens, when such in- 
vestigations cannot be avoided, that disclosures are made which 
are at the same time surprising to the public and discreditable to 
the parties implicated. 

If history gives us any reliable information at all, it is this, 
that governments have always been selfish and unprincipled, and 
so far as their power would enable them to go, they have uni- 
formly been despotic and domineering. Without a single excep- 
tion, the foundations of government are laid upon conquest, or in 
other words, upon robbery on a grand scale. The ambition of 
Rome was satisfied only by aggression and pillage. The career of 
ancient Greece was on a more limited scale, but the practices of 
its different states had precisely the same character as those of 
Eome. There is not a people in Europe to-day that does not live 
upon land that either they themselves or their ancestors secured 
by conquest. And how do the Americans come to occupy this 
continent to-day ? They are here simply and solely because they 
had more men, better arms and better discipline than the poor 
savages had whom they either killed or put to flight. The only 
possible way of acquiring land is by getting rid of the original 



THIS GODLESS AGE. 



25 



occupants in some manner and, with powerful nations, the most 
direct and most expeditious method of doing this, is through that 
destruction and devastation which comes from war. 

THIS GODLESS AGE. 

It has seemed important, in this place, to call the reader's at- 
tention to the godlessness of the age in which we live. It is a 
noticeable fact that the power of the state increases as the power 
and prestige of God wane, and as mortals are seen to come more 
and more to the front, the Almighty himself gradually with- 
draws from view, and it is to be feared that ere long he will dis- 
appear entirely. It is not Phoebus but Phaeton who is now driv- 
ing the chariot of the sun. It is men, not God, who direct the 
affairs of earth. 

So far as Europe and America are concerned, this is emphatic- 
ally a godless age. Such enlightened countries as France and 
Germany make scarcely any pretensions in the way of Christ- 
ianity, and as far as America is concerned, her efforts in the same 
department are largely made up either of pretense or show. The 
Christian people, so-called, of the present century have only one 
day to devote to religion — and only a small portion of the day at 
that. Business takes precedence over everything of a devotional 
character, and what little there is done in that line is left chiefly 
to women and children. Grown-up men have no time to waste 
for such purposes — unless it be when they have retired from busi- 
ness pursuits, or when, on account of failing health, they expect 
to survive but a short time. Business men seldom have time even 
to pray, especially so long as matters go along prosperously with 
them. They might call upon God for help in case of a cyclone or 
some other desperate emergency, but except under such rare con- 
ditions as these, they feel that they have no occasion for the in- 
tercession even of the Supreme Being. People have gradually 
drifted, for a hundred years or more, into a very worldly way. 
Indeed, ever since the advent of that valiant and noble defender 



26 THIS GODLESS AGE. 

of the cross, Martin Luther, religious sentiment has been more or 
less on the decline. Martin meant it all right enough — no better 
Christian man than him has ever lived, provided we measure his 
conduct entirely by his own standard. Martin only intended to 
introduce some improvements in theology, but as a direct result 
of his teaching, Christianity was cut loose from its moorings and 
it has been drifting ever since. As long as the Pope and the 
priests were allowed to decide what the people should believe and 
what not, things went along smoothly and pleasantly enough, but 
when people were given the Bible to read, and they were allowed 
to construe its passages according to their own individual in- 
terests or fancy, confusion followed, and matters have been grow- 
ing worse ever since — or in other words, faith in the Bible and its 
teachings has been growing weaker and weaker from that day 
down to the present time. 

But this godlessness of our age is decidedly phenomenal. In 
the history of this world, going back not only hundreds but thou- 
sands of years, there is no record of anything like it. Even to- 
day, outside of Europe and America, the case is entirely different. 
The Mohammedans who are spread over Asia and Africa in such 
immense numbers, are emphatically a devotional people. They 
believe in God, and therefore they worship him — they worship 
him not only daily but hourly. The same is true of the Chinese 
and of the native people of India — though, of course, their idea 
of God is not like ours. But it is well to bear in mind that when 
the quantity of religion is so excessive, the quality is apt to be 
inferior. 

In ancient times, so far as history informs us, religion was 
the chief pursuit of man. It was uppermost in the hearts of 
every man, woman and child — it was the first thing to receive 
their attention at all times. We know this to be the case with 
the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and Egyptians. 
But the Greeks and Romans are nearer to us, and we know more 
about their belief and practices. With them religion entered into 
all the affairs of life. Every head of a family had an altar in his 



THIS GODLESS AGE. 



2T 



own house where he worshiped his household gods. Like the 
Chinese and Hindoos, they worshiped their ancestors. When they 
began a city, they founded it as a divine institution. Even when 
they went to war. it was to engage in a religious enterprise. 
They could not even fight without gods to aid them. They 
honored their gods with feasts — they had many sacred days in a 
year. Their calendar was only a succession of religious festivals. 
The days of the week were named after their leading gods. To 
quote the words of a recent French writer : "In time of peace 
and in time of war. religion intervened in all the acts of life. It 
was everywhere present — it enveloped the man. The soul, the 
body, the private life, the public life, the repasts, the feasts, the 
assemblies, the tribunals, the combats, everything was under the 
empire of the religion of the city. Religion controlled all the 
actions of man, disposed of all the concerns of his life." How 
different things are with us ! Instead of many gods, we have but 
one — and that one is shamefully neglected. We do not allow him 
to meddle with our affairs at all. We actually have no use for 
him — so it seems at least. We have located him away off in 
heaven — some distant place, we hardly know where. Certain it 
is, we never hear from him, and it must be a very rare thing that 
he ever hears from us. 

It is plain indeed that we cannot accept the Bible as our 
guide and instructor, when we come to conduct an inqmry simi- 
lar to that which we have now undertaken. YVe have no Book 
of Life ; our Bible is certainly not accepted as such by intelligent 
men at the present day. Men do not consult the Bible to know 
what to do and how to manage their affairs. AVe cannot appeal 
to God when there is any question of importance to be decided, 
for there is no mediator or interpreter through whom we can 
reach God. 

It is evident enough that the great want of the present day is 
a New Religion, which of course implies a new Bible also. Our 
present Bible is like a code of fundamental laws, made over 2,000 
years ago, with a view to be used by a people who live to-day, 



28 



THIS GODLESS AGE. 



and who are blessed with all the modern improvements of the 
present century. Of course such a Bible is a misfit, and, as might 
be expected, it does not work successfully. A constitution, being 
from the people, can be amended by the people, but a Bible, 
originating in God, as is supposed, must remain unchanged and 
unchangeable to the end. No religion lasts forever, and ours cer- 
tainly will not. We want a religion that is elastic, we want a 
Bible that suits the people and the times. We want a Bible that 
does not endorse on one page what it condemns on another, and 
one that does not teach one thing in one verse, while it teaches 
quite another thing in some other. We want a Bible that any 
one can read and understand without the aid of an interpreter — 
we want a Bible that is direct in its statements and unequivocal 
in its commands. We want a Bible that teaches men how to live, 
as well as how to die. We want a Bible that is good and true for 
ourselves in this age of the world, and that is not necessarily good 
and true for every other people, in every other part of the world. 
We must not expect a Bible, any more than we should expect a 
code of laws, to be desirable or acceptable for all the world, or 
even for any single people for an unlimited number of years. 
Such a book has never yet been written, and it is certain that it 
never will be. It is absolutely impossible to produce such a 
volume. 

We want a practical religion, one for every day in the week, 
and for every week in the year. We want a religion with- 
out fear — a religion that is not perpetually threatening and thun- 
dering, while its blows are rained down in every direction. We 
want a religion that is not based upon a theory of rewards and 
punishments — a religion where a man is not hired to be good, 
and where he is not tortured and tormented because he happens 
to be bad. We want a religion without greed, without hate, 
without envy, without revenge, without selfishness — in short, we 
want such a religion as Christ taught. We want an honest religion, 
for honest men and women to follow in every-day life. We want 
a religion with its roots extending down to the heart, and not a 



THIS GODLESS AGE. 29 

religion that a man simply pins on his sleeves and wears at 
church for an hour or so on the Sabbath. We want a religion 
without pomp and show — we want a religion that costs nothing, 
that is as free as the water we drink and the air we breathe, and 
of which every man. woman and child who wishes may paitake 
without price and without conditions. We want a religion for 
free women as well as for free men : in our Bible, woman has 
but feeble recognition, and her rights are limited. We want a 
religion that appeals to the manhood of men — our religion as we 
have it now seems to imply that men are destitute of manhood. 
From the beginning of the Bible to the end. outside of the narra- 
tive portions, about all that we find is orders and commands : 
''you must do this." and ,, you mustn't do that." Everywhere 
we find signs put up to indicate that we must "keep off the 
grass." Could a family be well brought up or could an institu- 
tion be successfully managed on a system of "reward and pun- 
ishments " such as is set forth in our Bible ? Suffice it to say, 
our best families and our best institutions are not managed on 
any such plan at the present day. Our Bible is a book for the 
rich and not for the poor, for the master or governor, and not for 
the subject or slave. The good things of this world are reserved 
for those who have the most power : for the poor and unfor- 
tunate, nothing remains but an inheritance in heaven, and the 
Lord only knows whether they will not be cheated out of that 
legacy in the end. It is true that Christ taught a belief in the 
common brotherhood of mankind, but his followers do not seem 
to have accepted the doctrine. The nations of Europe, with one 
exception, are all Christians, and yet the masses in every coun- 
try are kept in the most abject slavery — and what is worse, is 
the fact that their rulers have good Bible authority to quote for 
keeping them in subjection as they are doing. 

Finally, we want a religion that is in harmony with nature, 
instead of being, like ours, opposed to it ; we want a religion of 
hope, of cheerfulness, and of healthful and sensible enjoyment — 
a religion under which every man may walk upright in the sight 



30 



THIS GODLESS AGE. 



of the Lord and be as good as his neighbor, if not as good as his 
Maker. We want a religion that appeals to the common sense 
and intelligence of people, and that is not opposed to their honest 
convictions and their experience in every-day life. As it is now, 
our Bible teaches us one thing, while our school books, our news- 
papers and our legislative enactments teach us something en- 
tirely different. 

But it must be borne in mind that wanting a new religion, 
is quite a different thing from wanting no religion at all. It is 
well to bear in mind that without religion there can be no 
government, and without government, society would cease to 
exist. Not to believe in God, is to be an anarchist. But one 
may believe in God, in his power, his wisdom and his goodness, 
without necessarily worshiping him or offering sacrifices after 
the manner of idolaters. One may even believe in man's ac- 
countability to God for all he does, without also believing that 
matters can be mended by long prayers at intervals, or by devo- 
tional offerings of any kind. It is a mistake to suppose that God 
can be made to change his methods by any ceremonies of that 
character. 

It is also well to bear in mind that without religion, without 
a belief in a Supreme Being, man would have no duties, no 
morals, no obligations to observe of any kind. We should have 
no marriage, no legitimate children, and no family in a proper 
sense. Without religion there would be no fatherland, and such 
a feeling as patriotism would be unknown. A man's native land 
is where his household gods are found. Without religion we 
should not even have such a thing as property, for there could be 
no rights, no obligations, no laws. Society itself would disap- 
pear, and all would be chaos. A man who believes in no God, 
no accountability on the part of man for his acts in this life, be- 
lieves in himself alone, as Alexander did, and as Csssar and Na- 
poleon did in later times. 

In this connexion, I beg to add that we need a new kind of 
preaching even more than we need a new religion. Men at the 



THIS GODLESS AGE. 



31 



present day preach, but do not practice, or rather they preach 
one thing and practice another : they pretend to be, but are not ; 
they profess to be. but their faith is not shown by their works. 
" Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the 
keeping of the commandments of God.'' And yet how few there 
are. even in this enlightened age of ours, that keep these com- 
mandments ! In the days of Paul, they had just such people as 
we have now. The Corinthians were a fair sample — enlightened, 
but corrupt, wealthy but wicked, wise in their own estimation, 
but in the ways of righteousness and truth without any know- 
ledge whatever. Would that we had a St. Paul with us to-day, 
a free talker, as well as a free thinker — a man who was not 
afraid to speak the truth at all times, and who uniformly made 
it a practice to call things by their right names. He said. ""I 
speak to your shame,'' and then he went on to tell what sort of 
people they had in Corinth and what they were doing. Unfor- 
tunately they have just such people in this country now, only 
they are perhaps a little more so. 

Suppose St. Paul had never written and such men as Martin 
Luther. John Knox and Charles Spurgeon had never spoken. 
The world is bad enough now. but without the efforts of some 
one, nay, without the combined efforts of many good people, 
its condition would be infinitely worse than it is. We have 
teachers and preachers enough now — that everybody knows ; we 
have lawyers and doctors, too, in great plenty, and yet our peo- 
ple are in an alarming state, mentally, morally, physically. We 
have an abundance of education, and yet crime and rascality in- 
creases ; we have schoolhouses with flags on and churches with 
bass horns and accompaniments of that kind, and yet the most 
hopeful optimist admits that the world is getting worse every 
day. It is not the quantity of our teaching and preaching at the 
present day — the Lord knows we have an abundance of it, such 
as it is. It is the quality that we are inclined to complain about. 
It is work done by the job, for so much money when the work is 
done, and everybody knows what kind of results you get with 



32 THIS GODLESS AGE. 

work done under such circumstances. The preachers in St. 
Paul's day did not work on a salary, and so they were never 
troubled with the fear of losing their pay ; they had no fur- 
nished parsonage, and such things as a vacation in summer, 
in that stage of the world, had never been thought of. The 
preachers of that age went about preaching the gospel truth, 
and if they struck a crowd that did not care to listen to what 
they had to say, what did they do? Did they shorten their 
discourse, did they soften their remarks, did they leave out an 
objectionable paragraph here and an offensive epithet there ? 
Did they diminish the dose or sweeten it in any way ? Did they 
give the patient soothing syrup, when it was Epsom salts 
perhaps that he needed, in doses big enough for a man? No, 
they did not do anything of the kind. They simply shook the 
dust from their feet and went to another place, just as Christ 
told them they should. The preachers in those days always 
kept themselves in light marching order. They had no debts 
to collect ; their laundry bills were extremely light, and all the ' 
property they had they might tie up in their pocket handker- 
chief — if they had one. As might be expected, such men went 
about preaching the truth, and they had many followers. The 
modern Evangelist who uniformly closes up with a prodigious 
collection at the end of his job, was not known in those days. In 
St. Paul's time saving souls was the biggest part of the business ; 
with the modern Evangelist, I sometimes think, the collection 
is a more important item than the mere matter of bringing 
sinners to repentance. 

Finally, is there a God? This question is pertinent in this 
place, because it is identical with the question whether men 
must have a master, a sovereign, a judge, a guide, in their ordi- 
nary, every-day affairs of life. If we do not need the one, we do 
not need the other, and when we believe in the one, it is only 
because we believe in the other. If we had no God, we would 
have no king, no master, no slaves. State rule and God rule 
proceed always along parallel lines, and when one declines, the 

2 



THIS GODLESS AGE. 



33 



other is certain to be affected. No worldly ruler could exist 
for a moment without founding his claims on the authority of 
some Supreme Being. He might be a robber, or a pirate with 
followers, but he would be far from being a lawful sovereign. 

Is there a God ? That question is the same as asking if there 
is a first cause, or really any cause at all. The answer to the 
question depends upon what is meant by the term God. If it is 
meant that some mysterious, incomprehensible being sits upon 
a throne somewhere outside of the universe and governs the 
affairs of men, turning this great globe first in this direction and 
then in that, according to the circumstances of the case, as the 
pilot directs the boat which he controls, I should say there is 
not, and never was, the slightest evidence of the existence of 
such a being. Theoretically there is no God, no Providence, no 
Ruler of the Universe, but practically there is a Supreme Being. 
Theoretically there is no such thing in existence as sound, heat, 
light or electricity, but practically they certainly exist. They 
have no separate, individualized existence, and yet they are 
powers or principles that manifest themselves in connexion with 
matter. They have no forms, no limits, no dimensions, they 
cannot manifest themselves except in connexion with matter, 
but it is equally true that matter cannot manifest itself except 
in connexion with these essential principles. There are no such 
independent, self -existent things as beauty and sweetness, and 
yet their existence is as real as the things to which the terms 
beautiful and sweet apply. Just so it is with God : he is a 
power, a principle, without which neither the universe nor any 
creature in it could exist for a moment. But God is not a being, 
and certainly he is not a creature. 

It is well to understand in this advanced age that there is no 
Providence, no God who is either able or willing to help us, and 
if we wish to make sure that anything is done, we must do it 
ourselves. Hence it is that with all our churches, and all our 
praying and sacrifices, we still have poverty, misery, drouth, 
famine, sickness, and even death, just as the world has had 



34 THIS GODLESS AGE. 

those things for thousands of years. No matter whether it is a 
Christian God or a pagan god that men worship — a God with a 
big G or a little g — they find that if they want to be helped, 
they must help themselves, for no God has yet been discovered 
that has been ready to help them in cases of emergency. Pray- 
ing and circumcision certainly will not relieve them, and it is 
very unfortunate for any one to become possessed of the idea 
that praying and circumcision can. All the aid that comes from 
God, or gods, lies simply in the minds of men. 

I see no need or propriety of worship in any case, and if 
people had not grown up with the habit of adoring God, they 
would not adore man or worship the state as they do. God, 
who is merely an essence or a principle, can hardly be influenced 
by adoration. In neither case, whether a man prays to God or 
to the state, would he receive assistance sooner than if he fell 
down and prayed before a stump or a stone. And yet men 
are exceedingly fond of telling others what God says, what God 
wants, what God does ! Is it not clear to all that such expres- 
sions are pure figures of speech ? It is clearly impossible to know 
what God does, or what God wants, or whether he does or wants 
anything at all. As to what God says, we know to a certainty 
that God has never said anything. I know it is stated that God 
wrote with his finger on a stone for Moses ; and Joe Smith and 
Mohammed both claim that he wrote a few chapters for them and 
gave them his autograph, but we think. God, by this time, has 
gone out of that line of business, for we have not heard of his 
sending out any autographs for a long, long time. We know as 
well as we know anything that the only way that God can com- 
municate with mortals is through men, through ordinary men, 
as his interpreters. Note well this fact, that God can do nothing, 
he cannot even write or talk, without the interposition of some 
of us common creatures of earth. Is it not plain enough that, in 
every case, what God says and what God does, is merely what 
men say and do in God's name? The sayings of God are uni- 
formly the dreams of men. God speaks to man. Yes, all 



RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 35 

nature speaks to man — the winds speak to him, the trees, the 
flowers, the heavens speak to him. So, and not otherwise, does 
God speak to man. 

RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 

Our next step will be an inquiry into the true character of 
right, duty and justice. These are matters upon which very 
erroneous opinions prevail, and it is highly important that one 
should have a clear understanding on this subject before we 
proceed further. 

It is well understood among thinking men that there is no 
such thing as eternal truth or universal truth. What is known 
to be true to-day, or rather what is believed to be true to-day, 
will not necessarily be true, or be believed to be true a hundred 
years hence — and when the speeding time reaches a thousand 
years, it is almost certain that some new conception will be re- 
ceived in place of what is considered to be unquestionably true at 
the present time. And so it is with the matters that we consider 
to be right and just, as well as with the things that we believe 
it to be our duty to do or to leave undone. Questions of right 
are like questions of truth or propriety. Their solution depends 
upon the point of view from which the observations are taken, 
and even somewhat upon the status or condition of the observer 
himself. What is right for one man is not necessarily right for 
every other man — and so it is with matters of justice and duty. 

There are many things that affect a man's idea of what is 
right and just. His education, his past habits and associations, 
and finally his conception of his own interest, have all much to 
do with what he considers to be right or wrong, just or unjust. 
No man considers that to be right or just to himself which in- 
jures him and which is opposed to his interests, either directly or 
ultimately. He may, from necessity or from motives of policy, 
submit to such an injury, but in his heart he always protests 
against it as wrong. That is human nature — the nature of every 



36 RIGHT, DUTY AXD JUSTICE. 

man and woman on this earth. Self-preservation is nature's first 
and highest law, and whatever injures the individual is opposed 
to this law of self-preservation. It is every man's duty, and his 
right, to look out for the interests of himself first. If men did 
not do that, the race would soon become extinct. Hence, we 
say, it is both natural and proper that men's ideas of right and 
duty should be shaped to a large extent by what they conceive to 
be their best interests, for the future, if not for the present. 

Before we go further, I wish to impress upon the mind of the 
reader this important fact : that right, justice and lawfulness, 
as well as duty, are alike in character and they are derived from 
the same source. If men were free and had no master, they 
would have no laws ; and if they had no laws, they would have 
no rights, duties or obligations. Savages have few if any laws, 
and hence they know very little about duties, and they hardly 
distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. The child 
in civilized life is very much in the same condition. It knows 
little about right or wrong or duties in its earlier years. Ideas 
of that character are almost wholly a matter of education. 

Really, what is right or just and what is lawful, ought to be 
one and the same thing. Originally they were so, but they are 
not so now. When laws were made in accordance with the 
prevailing ideas of right and propriety, then to be right, or just, 
and to be lawful, meant one and the same thing. Then there 
was but one kind of a law, and that was divine law or scripture 
law, as they have now in Mohammedan and other Asiatic coun- 
tries. Their scriptures were the law for them, and they recog- 
nized no other law as having any binding authority whatever. 
The Mohammedans study the Koran not only as their Bible, but as 
their law book. In the early centuries of Christianity, and es- 
pecially during the Middle Ages, our scriptures were recognized 
in a similar manner. But latterly men are making statute laws 
without any regard to the Bible, and often in contravention of its 
plainest provisions, and thus the time has come when justice and 
right is one thing, and lawfulness is quite another. In German. 



RIGHT. DUTY AND JUSTICE. 37 

rechi means right, and it also means law. for the Germans con- 
ceived right and lawful to be one and the same thing. AVe also 
use the term rights in the sense of legal rights, or lawful 
claims. 

The basis of all law is scripture law — the law that comes 
from God. Xo man can have any right to rule other men and 
make laws for them, except so far as he assumes to be, and is be- 
lieved to be. commissioned from God. And even to-day no mon- 
arch presumes to rule, save as the minister, messenger or servant 
of God. Every sovereign has to be crowned, consecrated, 
adopted by God. before he is a lawful ruler. Even in this god- 
less country of ours, the chief executive is expected to at least 
take the oath of office, a strictly religious, divine step, before he 
begins his duties as the presiding officer and quasi ruler of this 
republic. 

Moral law is only another name for scripture law. What we 
consider to be duties of a moral nature, are those that have their 
origin in God's commands We feel that we ought to do certain 
things and leave certain other things undone, simply because God 
so orders or directs. Men know of no laws that are binding upon 
them except those that come from the Supreme Ruler. If we 
had no Supreme Ruler, we should have known no laws— certainly 
no binding laws. We might add here that all such laws are 
supposed to be for the good of the men to whom they apply — if 
they were intended for the good of some one else, they would not 
be binding upon those men. Moses published such laws as he be- 
lieved to be for the advancement and prosperity of his people: 
Mohammed did the same tiling for his people — and so did Solon.. 
Lycurgus. Confucius and other law-givers. 

It is assumed that moral law has its source in God. the cre- 
ator and the ruler of us all. but as a matter of fact it is men that 
make moral laws They enforce, they judge and decide, they 
execute. Every step that is taken in that connexion is taken by 
men and for men. But it must not be forgotten that all enforce- 
ment of moral law is. like that of religious or scripture law. down- 



38 RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 

right persecution. It is compelling men to adopt a certain moral 
standard simply because it is our standard and because we want 
other men to do and believe as we do. 

What ought a man to do at all times ? His duty. And what 
is his duty ? That is the question which every man must settle 
for himself — no other man has either the ability or the privilege to 
decide for him. If any man can determine for me what my duty 
is and what I must do, then he is my master and I am his slave. 
But, according to the ideas which I have, I am a free man, and 
no man has the power or the right to dictate to me what I ought 
to do (that is, must do) and what I ought not to do. I know very 
well that duty comes from due, as ought comes from owe, just as 
pflicht, the German word for duty, means obliged, obligated, bound, 
but the owing, the obligation which enters into the conception 
here means not what we owe to man, but to God. Duty on our 
part can have no other source than God. No man has any claim 
upon any other man, for, if he had, he would have authority over 
him, which is something that, as a right, I deny most emphatically. 

A man is bound only so far as there are established laws, and 
those which are derived from competent authority. But all the 
laws that we know anything about are man-made. Even the 
scriptures are man-made, though of course great efforts are made 
to induce people to believe they are God-made. If they were 
really God-made, there would be no evading them, and men 
would have to obey them, whether they would or not. But we 
know that there are no such duties or obligations revealed to 
man. We know very well that man is not really obliged to do 
anything. He is not even obliged to obey what are called Na- 
ture's laws. He can obey them or not as he chooses; if he does 
not, he merely suffers the consequences. There is no law that 
keeps a man out of the fire, but if he gets in, he burns himself ; 
there is no law that keeps him from tumbling down a precipice, 
but if he does go over, he usually suffers some serious injury as 
the result of his carelessness or indiscretion. 

Justice is merely what is commanded, from the Latin jus. 



RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 39 

jussus, and it has no other foundation than the law, and the will 
of the ruler. A man even now goes to law to get justice, that 
is, justice as the lawyers and the law- givers determine the mat- 
ter. There is no criterion by which to decide what is just or 
right except the law. Whatever is lawful must be right, and 
whatever is right must of course also be just. Right and just 
are ideas that come entirely from man, and they concern him 
alone. They are matters that belong exclusively to the commu- 
nity in which a man lives. With God, everything is right, every- 
thing is just — he knows no wrong, no injustice of any kind, and 
he takes not the slightest cognizance of such matters. Can we 
speak of an unjust God? Can we think of a God that does 
wrong ? Can we think of a perfect being that is at the same time 
imperfect and corrupt ? If God made right, then it would be one 
and the same thing over all the world. But as it is, each people- 
has its own notions of right, justice and propriety — its own Bible, 
its own peculiar code of laws. What a people accepts as law for 
itself, is law, and no common precept can be. Right is a mat- 
ter of judgment, interest, authority, and so it must necessarily 
vary all over the world. All the right and justice of which we 
have any account, is merely that which men order or decide to 
be right and just. 

It should not be forgotten that in practice, all right, so far 
as we meet with it in this world, is merely what somebody else 
seeks to force upon us. We are not left to decide for ourselves 
what is right, but some outside party, some ruler, some law- 
giver, or perhaps public opinion, decides for us the whole ques- 
tion of what we must do or leave undone. We are not allowed 
to consult our judgment, or even our interests, for they are never 
recognized or consulted. It is always the interests or judgment 
of some one else that is to be consulted— the one that happens to 
be in authority. Not what I think, but what others think, is 
always the measure of right. This leads me to ask, why was I 
put into this world at all ? What am I good for ? What am I to 
do? The answer is, and under the present dispensation must 



40 RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 

continue to be, nothing. It is only when I rebel and oppose this 
monstrous doctrine, asserting that I am a free man and will be 
heard — it is only then that I amount to anything. After all, re- 
bellion is the only thing that really counts. 

No reason can be given why we consider this thing just and 
that unjust. Our ideas of justice and right do not come from 
reason — they are simply matters of feeling. We feel that it is 
right, we have always felt so, and therefore we have come to be- 
lieve and know that it is right. That is all there is of it. To as- 
certain why we feel so, we must go back and back, till finally we 
are lost in infinity. 

It is not at all strange that men living in different localities, 
under different conditions and with different surroundings, 
should have entirely different moral and religious laws. In some 
lands, as the Mohammedan, pork is eschewed as if it were poison ; 
and in other countries, as India, eating beef is a horrible thing. 
With some people, as in warlike countries, killing men, espe- 
cially enemies,, is a virtuous act; in other countries, more civil- 
ized, killing men, even enemies, is a capital crime — and so it is 
with rape, adultery, robbery, stealing, arson and other crimes. 
The rule of law in all such cases depends upon what men have 
been taught to consider their interests. In some civilized coun- 
tries it is murder to kill infants ; in other countries, as in 
China, it is an excusable offence. In many countries, not by 
any means barbarous, children are sold as slaves. But we our- 
selves do almost as badly, as we drive them out of doors to perish 
or grow up for the gallows or prison. Among the Romans, en- 
lightened as they were, the father had every right and the son 
none at all. He could kill the son or sell him as a slave. It is 
clear enough there is not in this world any true standard of 
morality and right. Education, interest and early association 
settle the question as a general thing. It should be remembered 
that what we consider a crime for other people to do, we do not 
always consider a crime for ourselves to do. The Bible says 
" thou shalt not steal," " thou shalt not commit adultery," " thou 



RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 41 

shalt not bear false witness ." But we nowhere find it stated that 
we must not do this or that What affects or injures us we want 
forbidden ; what affects or injures some one else, we are not so 
particular about. The whole question depends entirely upon 
whose ox was gored. 

We might explain that rights, duties and justice are things 
that pertain only to slaves, those who are under the law. A 
ruler, a judge, a law-giver, while acting in that capacity, has no 
duties — he is under no obligations of any kind, because he is 
master and he is not under the law in any way. He does as he 
pleases. A ruler never asks for justice - he never asks for any- 
thing. He has everything without asking. Rulers, like God, are 
always just, always right, so long as they are rulers. Indeed, 
there is no tribunal above them to decide when they are wrong. 

Law settles all justice and right. We judge and are judged, 
according to certain rules and principles which are found in the 
law and are established in the community as the standard. 
Other communities having different rules, or a different stand- 
ard, reach entirely different results. The duties which the law 
enforces are not what I really owe to my neighbor, for he is my 
equal and I owe him nothing, but what I owe to my master, the 
state or the sovereign. One ordinary man has no authority over 
another, and he cannot force the latter to do anything. What I 
must do, is a matter wholly between me and the state. If it 
were not for the state, I could do as I pleased — just as every free 
man ought to be allowed to do, governing his action entirely by 
the circumstances of each individual case when a question arises. 
As we have said before, savages have no laws such as we have, 
and hence they have no duties such as we have. They have no 
masters. They do as they feel like doing about the matter. In- 
deed, what natural right has the state, or a monarch, to say 
what other men must do ? But men in civilized life are slaves in 
various ways. They are slaves to business, slaves to fashion, slaves to 
public opinion, as well as slaves to those who administer the law. They 
are simply atoms in society — they are the merest nonentities imaginable. 



42 RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 

The foundation of all ideas of duty to ourselves and others lies 
in our religion, for I assume that every man has religious notions 
of some kind. Some men deny a personal God, and others deny 
a plurality of gods, but no intelligent man with a sound mind 
denies that there is a supreme authority somewhere, a "destiny 
that shapes our ends, " and a power that controls, moves and 
directs us quite aside from any ability of our own. That we are 
entirely powerless of our own might, that we are as feeble and 
helpless as infants, is a fact that must have become evident to 
the ignorant and intelligent alike. But such a feeling of utter 
helplessness as that with which we are impressed must lead to 
fear and awe, and these again to reverence and devotion. Our 
feelings may be quiet, or they may be demonstrative in char- 
acter, but religious sentiments of some kind must find a place in 
every man's bosom. There may be individuals who have less 
reverence than others, but there is no people, nor does history 
record that there ever was a people, without any religious notions 
whatever. 

If we turn back and read the pages of history, we shall find 
that the laws and customs of all civilized people take their rise 
in their religious belief, or they are co-existent with it, and if we 
could gain more reliable information in regard to savage races, I 
am confident the same would be found true of them also. We 
shall find that the religion of a nation and its philosophy are 
identical. Philosophy may go farther in its inquiries than re- 
ligion, but so far as religion proceeds, in the depths of thought, 
it will uniformly be found to be in harmony with philosophy. 
There is scarcely any distinct dividing line between philosophy 
and religion. They uniformly take their rise at the same time, 
and the progress they make is made together. But if there be 
any difference in then* order, it is philosophy that precedes re- 
ligion. The religion of China is a philosophy, and the same is 
true of the religion of Buddha. Neither Confucius nor Buddha 
pretended to anything supernatural in their own character. 
They were men like other men. They had certain new thoughts, 



RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 43 

a practical philosophy to which their lives were devoted — noth- 
ing more. Zoroaster was only a pious and devoted sage. Mo- 
hammed claimed, like Joe Smith, to be a divine messenger in a 
special sense, but we all know that he came no nearer to com- 
muning with God than hundreds of others did before him. or 
than others have since. He taught what he believed and what he 
was impressed to teach. His religion was his philosophy. 
Christ's teachings had the same basis, though, as all Christian 
people believe, he stood nearer to the Father than any one 
that has yet been born of earth. 

It must be remembered that the religions of the East were all 
founded by wise men of devout tendencies. They were not 
necessarily divine men. nor men blessed with any extraordinary 
inspiration. Confucius merely spoke the sentiments of the bet- 
ter men of his time. He was a plain man who cared not for 
mysteries. He was not a vain speculator. He had living, prac- 
tical thoughts, and these he sought to have accepted by the 
people of his time. Buddha, too. came to protest against Brah- 
manism. in the name of the thinking men of his day. So it was 
with Mohammed. He merely gave voice to sentiments that, in 
certain quarters at least, prevailed in his clay. It is true that 
he claimed to be more than an ordinary man. but. I apprehend, 
that was done chiefly to heighten the effect. 

A few words may finally be added with special reference 
to moral duties. Nothing is more variable than people's ideas of 
morality, and what is moral accorcling to the conceptions of one 
man may be quite immoral according to the conceptions of 
another man. Uncultivated people and barbarous tribes have 
no idea of morality as we understand the term. Goguet says : 
••Wisdom, justice, probity, in a word, the greater part of the 
moral virtues, had not even names in the ancient language of 
the Greeks, as they still have not among the savages of 
America. " 

As already indicated, our ideas of morality are based largely 
upon what is taught in the Bible, and our duties are founded 



44 RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 

upon our relations to God. If we did not believe in our Jewish 
God, we would know nothing of duties of any kind. We would 
act upon impulse and do what we wished whenever we found it 
possible. We would have to manage very much as the lower 
animals do and leave our actions to be controlled by circum- 
stances and our surroundings. Morality as we have it is a sort 
of half -religion, and it hardly differs from religion in its char- 
acter. Before we can have obligations of any kind, we must 
have a master to enforce the obligation. Without a master there 
can be no law of any kind ' 

It will be observed that animals and children have no well- 
defined notions of right and wrong — they have no morals. They 
do what they feel inclined to do, and very often they do what 
they see others do. They are somewhat governed by the un- 
written law of custom. Like savages, they know little of the 
law of gratitude, patriotism and all such virtues. Whatever en- 
ables them to accomplish their ends, is to them lawful and 
right. 

People make a great mistake in supposing that our morals, 
our ideas of right and wrong, prevail all over the earth, and 
that they are even recognized by the Supreme Being, while as a 
matter of fact our morals are not observed by any other people. 
Morals are entirely a local matter governed by the times and the 
circumstances. It must be remembered that God knows nothing 
about justice, about morals. God is always one, the same and 
unchangeable, but justice and morality vaiy according to the 
locality and the people. Before we ask God to side with us in 
our ideas of morality, justice and right, we ought to ascertain 
what his views on this subject are. But how can we know this ? 
And how could God agree with us and with good people in 
other countries, whose ideas differ so much from ours? The 
fact should never be lost sight of that our morals are affected by 
the climate, and that not only our surroundings but our in- 
herited natures have a powerful influence upon these things. 
Morals are merely customs. Custom is law everywhere, and in 



RIGHT. DUTY AXD JUSTICE. 45 

its character it is akin to divine law. Without divine law. we 
should have no moral law. no morals properly called. 

We cannot derive morality from statute law. The law 
never makes a man moral : such a thing could not possibly be 
done in such a way. even if it were tried. Slaves can never be 
made moral. Morality is for free men alone. A man to be 
truly just, moral and good must first of all be free. What a 
man is compelled to do. is really what others do. and it cannot 
be credited to his own accoimt in any case. 

Of course. I understand very well that as a matter of history 
morality cannot be derived from religion, and no man is moral 
simply because he is religious ; as a matter of fact, in the esti- 
mation of most men. serving God and doing ones duty to his 
fellow men. are two essentially different things. And still it r is 
a fact that a man's moral code depends largely upon his religious 
belief, or rather upon the doctrines and dogmas of the Bible 
he accepts. For proof of this claim, we need only to refer to the 
history of Europe during the Middle Ages, when people believed 
in the Bible as men never did before and as they never have since. 

Duty is what we owe a man. but we cannot have any duty, 
we cannot owe a man. unless there is some one whom we ac- 
knowledge as our God and Judge, some one who is over us and 
whose authority we recognize. A duty is an obligation. But 
we cannot obligate ourselves : obligation and duty must come 
from some outside source. So that I am not able to see that anv 
one can feel a duty of any kind, moral or otherwise, unless he 
acknowledges the existence of a Supreme Being. I understand 
very well that a man may be a good citizen without having any 
religious convictions of any kind. He may be kind, he may be 
considerate, he may be judicious, he may be honest, he may be 
sympathetic and hospitable — but not because he feels it a duty 
that he owes to any one. not because he feels obligated or real- 
izes the necessity of doing as he does. What he does comes from 
the natural impulses of his heart, and not from any compulsion 
of a moral, religious or governmental character. 



46 RIGHT, DUTY AND JUSTICE. 

Morals are merely what the word indicates — they are cus- 
toms, and customs arise from what people have come to believe 
and what they deem proper and necessary. 

Good conduct consists mainly in a man's adapting himself 
to his surroundings, and especially to the feelings and wants of 
those with whom he finds himself associated. If a man lived 
entirely alone, then and then only would he find nothing to 
control his conduct or restrict his action, except his own in- 
ability. But even then he could not do as he pleased, since he 
would lack the power to do what he wished. However, he 
would have this advantage, that he would never have to con- 
sult some other human being as to what he had better do or 
leave undone. He would have no duties of any kind and no 
obligations to any one either moral, religious or otherwise. 

The best rule of conduct for any man to follow, is to do 
what he feels he ought to do. and what a careful and intelli- 
gent review of the facts in the case leads him to believe it is 
his bed interest to do. I know of no higher or better rule of con- 
duct than that, and the one who follows it sensibly, consider- 
ately and judiciously, will be what the world considers an up- 
right man and a good citizen. No sensible man will ever find 
it to his interest to do wrong and violate the better feelings of 
his fellow men ; no man will ever find it to his interest in the 
end to live upon the labors of others, to oppress them, to en- 
slave them or to wrong them in any way. Such men the world 
may tolerate, but it never will pronounce them good in any 
sense. Such men can never be happy, for no man can be 
happy who does not enjoy the esteem and friendship of those 
with whom he is compelled to reside. 

CAUSE AND EFFECT. 

The true nature of cause and its relation to what is called 
effect, is not well understood even by those who are known 
as intelligent men, and as there is so much error and de- 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 



47 



ception on this subject in connexion with matters of govern- 
ment, I have deemed it well to give some space to its consider- 
ation in this work. 

This question of cause and effect involves every other ques- 
tion ; if we had clear notions of the nature and influence of 
cause, we would have clear ideas on all other questions. But as 
it is, the human mind is wholly adrift on this matter of cause 
and effect, and that is the reason why one asserts what another 
denies, and why one names one thing as the cause which pro- 
duces a particular effect, and some one else assigns an entirely 
different cause for this same effect. What men believe in one 
age is discarded as false in the following age. A few hundred 
years ago people believed in an entirely different class of causes 
from those that people believe in now. The beliefs of the former 
ages we call superstitions, errors and delusions, and that is what 
posterity is certain to call the beliefs of the present time. A 
few centuries since, and, in some remote and unenlightened 
districts even at the present day, men believe in devils, in gods, 
angels, spirits, witches, demons : and they believe in the in- 
fluence of the heavenly bodies, especially the moon, and they 
regard them as the source of certain effects upon the earth. If 
we had no false theories, or false beliefs, we would not be so 
much in error in regard to causes and effects, and when we 
know more about nature and its workings than we do now, we 
will have improved ideas of the causes of things, if, indeed, 
there are any such things, properly called, as causes. 

Nothing is more common than to hear people speak of this 
thing as the cause of that result or of that event, when in fact 
there may be no connexion at all between the effect named and 
the assumed cause ; or, if there is any connexion, it is one that 
is exceedingly remote. The subject thus far has probably re- 
ceived little attention on the part of our readers, but there is 
hardly one that exceeds it in importance to mankind. What is 
now published may at least aid in creating an interest in this 
question. 



48 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 



There is an immense number of causes which are assumed 
to produce effects — the things that we see are supposed to be 
causes, and so what we think, what we imagine and what we 
reflect upon may be said to be causes, just as an axe or a piece of 
wood may be a cause. But is there really any connexion be- 
tween what we consider the cause and what we call the effect ? 
Does the tail of the comet produce the comet, or even cause it to 
move, simply because they uniformly follow a certain order ? 
It is time that we knew something about the real nature of 
cause ; it is a term that appears in every-day use and it is inti- 
mately connected with all the affairs of life. 

We are continually talking about what men do and the 
effects they produce. And what is it that any man has thus far 
accomplished, what is the single effect of which any man is the 
sole cause ? It is a very common thing to assert that Luther 
was the cause of the reformation, when in fact he was simply 
its chief agent and, in a certain sense, merely one of its effects. 
The reformation began long before Luther was born, and lasted 
till long after his body had turned to ashes. The reformation 
was the revolt of the whole German nation. So we speak of 
Christ, uniformly, as the founder of the Christian religion, 
when, to be more accurate, he was merely the leading agitator 
of his day, and he taught, in a forcible and effective manner, 
doctrines that had been recognized and advocated centuries be- 
fore his birth. Christ taught simply certain modifications of 
the Jewish religion, while the real founder of the Christian re- 
ligion, if it can be said to have had a founder, was Paul. But 
even Paul was only a great teacher and advocate. He did 
not make Christianity what it is ; Christianity is a growth, a 
development, and the process of transformation continues still. 

It is certain that we must soon modify our notions of cause 
and its power, in order that they may correspond with our new 
views of Providence and the laws of nature. It begins to be 
evident to the thinking men that there is no real cause, any 
more than there is any real creation. What we declare to be the 

3 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 49 

cause of certain effects has merely some remote or some appar- 
ent connexion with that effect. It is certain enough that no 
one cause produces any particular effect. An effect is like the 
resultant line in forces, not the product or result of any one 
force, but of a combination of different forces coming from 
different directions, and all acting at the same time. The forces 
which produce results, if such things there be, have been in 
existence and in action from the time the universe was created. 

To produce any result, the whole world must conspire. 
Every act, every event must be in harmony with all past his- 
tory, and with all that is present now, with all that preceded it 
in the past or that will succeed it in time to come. No one cause 
produces any single effect. To send a ball in a certain direction, 
or to keep a planet in its orbit, how many different or inde- 
pendent forces must combine and co-operate ! But a cause that 
is properly a cause, if such a thing could be, would need no 
assistance, no co-operation. There can be no half causes; a 
half cause would be no cause at all. 

When the ball is set in motion, what causes it to move? 
Shall we say it is the bat with which the blow was struck ? No, 
the bat alone could not be the cause, for we may have the bat, 
the arm and the ball and a score of other things in that con- 
nexion, and still the ball may not move. You may strike a ball 
ever so forcibly with ever so heavy a bat, and yet, if the con- 
ditions are not favorable, the ball will not move. So it is evi- 
dent that it is neither the bat, the ball nor the hitting that alone 
does the business. Again, after the ball once begins to move, 
it continues in motion, but that continued motion cannot be 
attributed to the bat, for after the impact, the bat might be 
struck out of existence and the ball would nevertheless con- 
tinue in motion. It is evident enough that the force that moves 
the ball resides in the ball, not outside of it. All that the bat 
or the batting does is, in some mysterious way, to set in motion 
the springs of action that belong in the ball. 

Again, suppose a man walks to Albany, a distance of one 



50 CAUSE AND EFFECT. 

hundred miles. Is it the last step that brings him to that city ? 
Certainly the last step has no more to do with bringing him to 
the end of the journey than the first step. Or suppose we have a 
weight that is to be raised on a pair of scales. We may put one 
hundred pounds or two hundred pounds on the opposite side of 
the scales, and still the weight will not rise. We add perhaps 
five pounds and even ten pounds, and that may not prove to be 
sufficient. In the end it is the extra ounce or a sheet of paper 
that turns the scale. Ordinarily we would say the extra ounce 
or the sheet of paper is what did the business, and is to be con- 
sidered the final cause that made the weight rise. But, really, 
is the last feather the one that breaks the camel's back ? We 
know very well that the last feather does not break the camel's 
back, and yet there is no doubt that it has as much to do with that 
business as any or all the rest of the feathers have. The same 
principle is illustrated when two men run for an office, and one 
of the candidates is elected by a majority of one. Out of the 
thousand or more votes that the victor may have secured, which 
is the one that may be said to have ensured his election ? Which 
was the real cause of the triumph ? Certainly none of them — 
each vote counted as much as every other vote, and so we could 
not properly ascribe any more value or power to one vote than 
to the other. The result accomplished was not that of one vote, 
but of a thousand votes, and so it is in all other cases where 
effects are supposed to be produced by certain causes. 

So in the practice of medicine — we sometimes say it is the 
treatment or the nursing that cures the patient, and sometimes 
we assert that it is the pills or the powders that he swallowed 
that restored him to health. But we have so many kinds of 
cures, so many methods of treatment, so many schools of medi- 
cine, how shall we know which is reliable and sure to produce 
the cures promised ? We have the faith cure, the science cure, 
or prayer cure, the Providential cure ; we have the allopathic 
treatment with large doses, and the homeopathic treatment, 
with doses infinitesimally small ; we have hot baths and cold 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 51 

baths, we have calomel and quinine and opium and iron, and 
perhaps brass occasionally. Formerly we had a hundred things 
in the way of treatments that no one uses or thinks of using 
now. Bewildered with these thousand and one different things 
that are presented to us as a " sure cure for all diseases, " which 
shall we take ? Who shall presume to tell which ? We do not 
believe that a man would be very far out of the way who should 
assert that any one remedy is as good as any other, and not 
any one of them could be said to be reliable. 

Nothing gives us a better idea of what a cause is, or rather 
what it is not, than this same practice of medicine. People de- 
clare with the utmost assurance that a certain medicine will 
cure, or it has cured a particular disease, and still all the proof 
that could be had would be simply the assertion. Whether the 
medicine did or did not cure the disease, it is absolutely impossi- 
ble to show. It should be borne in mind in this connexion that 
in ancient times medicine was something entirely different from 
what we have at present, and the causes of cures then were not 
at all like the causes in vogue now. In those times, and away 
back in the Middle Ages, the practice of medicine was a matter 
of divination, and people were cured by signs, relics, cere- 
monies, prayers, and agencies of that character. Some of those 
remedies are still believed in, even in this enlightened age of 
ours. For instance, every one must know some little trick, or 
some little ceremony, by which warts can be removed. Almost 
every old woman has some recipe of that character, and she 
feels perfectly assured that her remedy never fails. It must be 
remembered that the ancients never pretended that they in- 
dividually could cure diseases. They gave the whole credit to 
the gods, while our doctors at the present time take the whole 
credit to themselves and leave God out of consideration. 
Christ cured by the laying on of hands, but he was the son 
of God, and hence it was God's work, indirectly. A century 
ago or more, kings cured by mere touch, but this power they 
possessed merely because they were God's representatives. The 



52 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 



American Indians also make the practice of medicine a matter 
of divination. They believe that sickness is the work of demons 
or spirits. It might be added that it is evident enough that 
medicines do not cause the cures that are claimed for them, for in 
a large majority of cases, the medicine is a complete failure, 
and no cure is effected, and really we are never certain that 
medicine in any case is possessed of the curative properties 
claimed for it. The patient gets well on account of the strength 
of his constitution, and on account of the reserve forces stored 
up in his body which enables nature to master the disease. 
Nature does the whole work ; medicine may aid or stimulate 
nature, but even that much is not known to a certainty. A 
disease that kills one man does not kill every other ; the young 
master diseases much better than those who are older, whose 
treasury of reserve force is small. 

As a further illustration of the confusion that prevails on the 
question of cause and effect, we might refer to cases of death by 
shooting. One man is shot and does not die ; another is shot, 
and dies. In the case of the latter, was it the gun, the shooting, 
the lead, the powder, or was it the man who aimed the weapon 
and pulled the trigger that caused the death? Or was it the 
weakness of the man's constitution, or the lack of medicine, or 
improper treatment, that led to death in one case, while the 
other man who was injured, recovered? It must be evident 
enough that shooting alone does not kill a man, because so many 
men are shot that do not die. So gravity does not always draw 
bodies downward, for often it is the cause of their rising upward. 
A ball rolls down hill because of gravity, but a block does not 
roll, though gravity as a cause is still in operation. Is it not the 
roundness of the ball, or perhaps other conditions that make the 
ball roll? Gravity alone cannot produce such an effect. We 
speak of gravity as a power, but we do not know how it is or 
what it is, or whether there really is such a force in nature or not. 
We cannot demonstrate that anybody is moved in any case by a 
power outside of himself. We speak of bodies attracting other 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 



53 



bodies, and even of ourselves as being attracted by the beauty of 
this or that person, but where is the evidence that any power is 
exerted in any instance ? We are continually making assertions 
and assuming things to be so, without a single item of proof to 
demonstrate what is claimed. We assume a man is guilty, and 
immediately proceed as if it were known and proved that he was 
guilty. We talk about things unknown and unknowable, as if 
we were familiar with all the facts of the case. Our thoughts are 
all a dream on our part ; we dream and we continue to dream, 
even in our waking hours, and what we see in our dreams we 
naturally treat as realities. In this respect we are much like 
savages. We are beginning to see, however, that what we call 
causes are not causes at all. They are merely last links in a long 
chain of facts or events connected with certain results. 

We say rain makes the grass grow. But does it ? We often 
have rain when the grass does not grow at all. It all depends 
upon the season, the condition of the grass and other circum- 
stances ; and finally upon the question whether there is any grass 
or not. We say that the clouds disappearing make the sun come 
out, but we know very well that the sun remains just where it 
was. 

The nature of what we denominate causes can be best under- 
stood by considering events. Take the case of the war of the 
late Eebellion. What brought on this rebellion? Was it the 
firing upon Fort Sumter, or was it the first battle of Bull Run ? 
No, these were each single steps in a long process. There were 
hundreds and hundreds of causes still back of these operations. 
It might as well be said that the cause was the Nullification act , 
or the Fugitive Slave law, or the Wilmot Proviso, or John 
Brown's raid, or Lincoln's election. All these things had their 
effect, as we say, but they were only remotely connected with 
the final result. So, in the case of the American Revolution. 
Was the Declaration of Independence the cause, or was it the 
Boston riot or the tea thrown overboard in Boston harbor ? No, 
these were only steps in a long series of steps that began, we 



54 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 



may say, when the world began. It may at least be said that 
the struggle that led to the Revolution began when the colonists 
first landed in America, 

In connexion with this matter of cause and effect comes up 
the "question of the value of ceremonies, sacrifices, prayer, 
preaching, worship. Where is the proof that they have the 
power and produce the effects that are claimed for them ? The 
same may be asked in reference to the power of law and govern- 
ment. Do these things make people orderly and happy ? What 
is the effect of the currency, the tariff and all such schemes ? 
No one knows, no one ever can know. The problem is too deep, 
and the matter too intricate, It is at least certain that in these 
cases, as in all others, where one thing is assumed to be the cause, 
there are a thousand other things that are causes more or less 
remote, and these must all be taken into consideration, if we 
would fully or even partially understand the matter. 

It must be evident to the most superficial inquirer that the 
time has come, when we must have new conceptions of the true 
nature and power of causes. They are not what we have all 
along imagined they were — they of themselves produce nothing. 
It is to be noticed that the world is continually changing its ideas 
of things in this direction, rejecting old causes and assigning new 
ones. For instance, the cures in Christ's time were effected 
through the direct interposition of Providence. The cure was a 
miracle then, as every cure is really a miracle with us to-day. 
Men believed in Christ and were healed by him. Later on, the 
healing ceremony took a little different form, but the work was 
still done by God through his instrumentalities — through charms, 
relics, saints, priests, kings. In fact, the practice of medicine 
has always been more or less intimately connected with religion. 
The first doctors that we read of were priests. With the savages, 
the medicine man and the prophet is usually one and the same 
person. 

We are just as much bewildered over the nature and limits 
of causes as people were one thousand, or perhaps four thousand 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 55 

years ago. Some men take medicine and some do not, and of 
those who believe in it, some take one thing and some another. 
Some still believe in the efficacy of prayer, in the power of relics, 
in charms, in the faith cure, in the science cure, some in the hot 
water bath, some in the cold water bath, and some in no bath at 
all ; some in medicine in large doses, some in small doses, and 
some in no dose at all. Now, all of these cannot be causes of 
cares ; they cannot all be reliable remedies. And, really, the dif- 
ference in the system or method of cure does not seem to make any 
material difference in the safety of mankind. Men died in olden 
times and they die now — even the doctors themselves die — and 
the average length of life is probably not much greater now, 
when every family has its apothecary shop, than it was two 
thousand years ago when the use of drugs was almost if not 
wholly unknown. But whether we do or do not do, and no 
matter what we do or do not do, somebody seems to take care of 
us and we get along after all. What we have said of medicine 
will apply in all the other departments of life. Everywhere we 
are at a loss to ascertain the true cause, everywhere we are ac- 
customed to imagine causes that do not exist, and we often at- 
tribute the wrong effect to the wrong cause. 

We are continually telling about this cause and that cause, 
when everything we say in that connexion is the merest assump- 
tion. We pray, we weep, we laugh — we do ten thousand things 
either little or great, but who can ever know what their effects 
are, or whether they have any effects ? No doubt eclipses were 
just as much the cause of the calamities which sometimes 
followed their appearance, and which they were supposed to 
produce, as certain things are causes of certain effects in our 
e very-day life. We say the law has its effect ; or the climate, 
the light, the heat, the microbes, etc. , are the causes of certain 
diseases. Does the weather make the mercury rise or fall, or is 
it the rising or falling of the mercury that causes the change in 
the weather ? They are merely phenomena that come together 
— never one in advance of the other. How do we know that a 



56 CAUSE AND EFFECT. 

certain thing is an effect in any one case ? "We know that every 
effect, instead of being the result of one cause, is the product of a 
thousand little influences all combined. No effect can happen that 
is not in harmony with everything eUe in the world. So there can be 
no such thing as one effect from a single cause. 

In matters of government, men are continually mistaking 
cause for effect and assigning some one thing as the cause, when 
in reality there are numerous other things that are equally potent 
in their influence in the same direction. Politics, as a rule, is 
built up largely upon unfounded assertions and assumptions. 
Each party puts forth its claims, without the slightest regard to 
evidence and the facts. If there is any good thing that has 
happened, the party in power is sure to claim that as a proof of 
the wisdom of its policy, while if something bad happens to 
occur, it is sure to be charged up to the account of the other 
party. 

We are continually told what the Wilson or the Dingley 
tariff has done, and what free silver would do, if an opportunity 
were given, while the plain and unquestioned fact remains that 
the wisest statesman never knows what is or what will be the 
direct effect of any particular policy. 

The question of cause is identical with the question of the 
existence of a God. We believe in the causes of things only 
because we believe in a Supreme Being, a first Great Cause. 
If we had no first cause, we could have no secondary causes. 
We believe in cause because we believe in Providence, and be- 
cause we believe that everything that occurs is a matter of in- 
tellect and design. But men are beginning to lose faith in 
causes, because they cease to believe in a Great Contriver, Over- 
seer and Provider. We find we have thus far been pinning our 
faith on something that is not fixed and substantial, and there- 
fore our theory begins to dissipate, or rather it begins to assume 
a new form and another appearance. 

However, men still believe, with some notable exceptions, in 
design ; they still imagine there is a reason for every exist- 



CAUSE AND EFFECT. 



57 



ence, a motive for every action, and an impulse for every 
movement. 

They believe that the world was created for a purpose, though 
they are not able to state exactly what that purpose might be. 
They believe that one thing is made for another, is adapted to 
another, and that it must serve another. They still believe in 
the old Mosaic account of creation, that the world was made by 
the job, one piece at a time, that it took six days to complete it, 
and that the Great Contriver rested from fatigue on the seventh, 
having, according to all accounts, done no hard work of any 
moment since that time. They really believe that the sun and 
stars were not made for themselves, but for the earth, that 
the fowls and beasts were made for man to eat ; that 
God made man first, and then finding that man was lonely, 
he made him a companion from Adam's rib. That was the doc- 
trine for many hundred years, and it was generally accepted, 
simply because men could think of nothing more plausible. But 
it is needless to say that such a belief is entirely groundless, and 
it is nothing but somebody's dream. All the assumptions in that 
connexion are gratuitous — the things assumed to be true, may 
be true, but there is not the slightest evidence that they are or 
ever were so. People are slowly becoming more and more en- 
lightened, and the fictions that amused them in their youth now 
amuse them no more. They begin to lose their confidence in a 
First Great Cause, and if there is no First Cause, they begin to 
doubt whether there is a secondary cause, or any cause at all, 
in the ordinary sense of the term. They are inclined to look for 
some other explanation of the present condition of things. 
They begin to doubt that the leaves drop as a matter of self- 
sacrifice, in order that the tree may survive. Instead of believ- 
ing that one thing was made for another and to serve another, 
they begin to realize the fact that all things were made at the 
same time, as parts of one whole, and that if they have any 
object or purpose at all, it is simply the continuance of their 
own individual existence as an atom in the universe. 



58 



CATjSE and effect. 



Hartmann speaks of the objects, aims and purposes of 
nature, as if it were possible for nature to have aims ! To have 
a purpose or an object, implies feeling and intelligence, and 
where these things do not exist, there can be no such things as 
aims and purposes. To speak of the purposes of nature, is the 
same as speaking of the purposes of a tree or a stone, or the pur- 
poses of electricity. 

Fifty years ago Grove, in his Correlation ~of Forces, wrote : 
" Instead of regarding the proper object of physical science as a 
search after essential causes, I believe it ought to be, and must 
be, a search after facts and relations — that although the word 
cause may be used in a secondary or concrete sense, as meaning 
antecedent forces, yet in an abstract sense it is totally inappli- 
cable : We cannot predicate of any physical agency that it is ab- 
stractedly the cause of anotlier. " 

To cause is to create — to bring forth what did not exist be- 
fore. Is there any such cause, or has there been since the world 
was^created ? If God created all things in the beginning, there 
was nothing left to be created afterward. To cause is to pro- 
duce, and the product cannot be different from the producer. 
The creator and the thing created must be identical, and the 
same is true of cause and effect. What the earth produces is 
merely a form or a part of the earth itself. 



Finally, we nave a right to expect that the cause and the 
effect should in all cases be commensurate. One pound cannot 
balance more than a pound ; a twelve pound cannon cannot be 
used in firing a twenty pound ball ; a man who can lift only 
one hundred pounds, evidently could not lift one hundred 
and fifty pounds. Still, we are everywhere confronted with 
effects that bear no comparison with the causes with which 
they are supposed to be connected. In every case, the cause is 
either too great for the effect, or the effect is too great for the 
cause, the latter dilemma being much the more frequent. The 
best illustration is the homeopathic dose, which, though in- 
finitesimally small, is said to be able to produce effects that 




THE MISSION OF MAN. 



59 



are wonderfully large. The case of faith moving mountains, is 
another illustration. But the question that naturally arises is 
this: where is the proof that faith does move mountains, 
or that the homeopathic dose really does produce the effects 
claimed ? The conclusion seems irresistible, that causes become 
so attenuated and so insignificant that they finally lose all 
claims to being considered as causes which produce effects. 

THE MISSION OF MAX. 

In deciding what a man should do. and what should be his 
career in life, much will depend upon the conception formed as 
to his true position in the world and his relations to the rest of 
creation. Indeed, the first question to decide before we under- 
take to ascertain what man should do is this : AVhat is man, 
and what is his mission in life ? That is the question to which 
we will now turn our attention. 

Just how much conceit is possessed by the lower animals, is 
something that has never yet been clearly ascertained : but it 
is certain that the members of the human family are abun- 
dantly supplied with the article. The belief prevails universally 
among men that the members of the human race are the most 
perfectly organized specimens that God ever sent out. This 
absurd idea comes chiefly, if not wholly, from our Bible. AVe 
read in Genesis of the great amount of pains that the Creator 
took when he made man. bringing forth one individual at a 
time — Adam first, and Eve, his helpmeet, shortly afterward. 
But when he came to make the fowls, the whales and the beasts 
of the field, he sent them out in job lots. He made man after 
his own likeness, but what pattern he followed in getting up the 
rest of creation, is not clearly ascertained. He did even more 
than that for men. He said "let them have dominion over the 
fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, 
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing upon the 
earth." Now, this being the account given of the origin of man 



60 THE MISSION OF MAN. 

and of his relation to other creatures, an account received and 
accepted, until recently, as strictly true and authentic, is it any 
wonder that the human race should be the most arrogant and 
conceited of all created beings? According to this statement, 
the world and all that is in it was made for man ; even God 
himself has seemingly no other business than to provide a home 
for men and superintend their affairs. With such a theory and 
such an inheritance as that, why should man not be proud and 
intractable? Again, when, later on, a Saviour came into the 
world, he came not to save animals, but man only, and even of 
men, to save merely "the lost sheep of the children of 
Israel." According to the Bible account, every object in the 
world save man is insignificant. But who knows what bears 
would say on this subject, if they could express their sentiments 
so as to be understood by men ? No doubt they would say that 
the world was made for bears, and they are the ones that should 
have dominion over creation. And the lion, the eagle, the ele- 
phant, the whale, and perhaps the bee and the butterfly, would 
make precisely similar claims. 

Unfortunately for this Bible story, no student at the present 
time looks upon this account as anything but a piece of innocent 
fiction. Outside of this account given in Genesis, there is not 
the slightest evidence to be found anywhere that man is ' ' only 
a little lower than the angels. " As to man's right to dominion 
over the things of the earth, there is no foundation for such a 
claim, and when it comes to the question of his being made in 
the image of God, there is no proof to establish that fact. The 
common house-fly is just as fearfully and wonderfully made, 
and no doubt has just as exalted a mission as man himself. 
The same Creator that made one made the other, and a perfect 
workman never sends out imperfect work. The humblest being 
in creation has its place to fill quite as well as man has, and so 
far as the plans of the Almighty are concerned, one creature is 
just as indispensable to the world as any other creature. 

Then, what shall we say is the mission of man ? Who shall 



THE MISSION OF MAN. 61 

inform us ? On what authority can we rely with safety in con- 
sidering a question of such gravity and importance ? We know 
of nothing but ordinary intelligence and reason that shall guide 
us to a sound conclusion on this subject. It has been seen that 
we cannot depend upon revelation, and when it comes to the 
opinions of men on any question, one man's opinions are apt 
to be as good as those of another man. In the first place, it 
seems to be perfectly well settled that men are not to rule over 
the earth, or over the creatures of the earth, or even over mem- 
bers of their own race. If there are any who still imagine that 
the mission of man lies in the direction of dominion and con- 
quest, they should get rid of that illusion at their earliest op- 
portunity. There is not a particle of evidence to be found any- 
where to support such a proposition as that. 

Again, what is the mission of man ; what is the policy he 
should adopt, the plans he should follow, or the course he should 
pursue, in passing through this world on his way from the 
cradle to the grave ? On this subject men differ, and doubtless 
they always will. The best of men on such a question as this 
can only give an opinion. 

It seems clear enough that man's mission is not to subdue 
the earth. But can it be that it is man's mission to advance in 
what is called learning and wisdom? Can it be that God has 
hidden himself from man in order that the latter should busy 
himself in searching him out? Can it be that the works of 
nature should have been made designedly mysterious, so that 
mankind should spend a lifetime in the vain pursuit of knowl- 
edge ? Doesn't the savage, and even the brute, without books, 
without study, without schools, without laws, without govern- 
ment, and even without a Bible, fill his place and carry out his 
purposes quite as well as the philosophers that are to be found 
among civilized men ? The humblest creature that God ever 
made, even the weakest and most insignificant, appears to live 
and thrive just as well as beings made of finer fiber, and as 
well as those that have much loftier pretensions. 



62 



THE MISSION OF MAX. 



Is it the mission of man to make war, killing thousands of 
people and making tens of thousands helpless and miserable — is 
that man's mission ? If we were to judge by the past history of 
the world, one would naturally assume that the answer to this 
question must be in the affirmative. Man is a destructive 
animal, it is claimed, and his proper avocation is to find some- 
body that deserves to be killed. That has been the theory, but 
Heaven forbid that it should be the theory of enlightened men 
at this late day, now the close of another century. We are glad 
to state that such a belief is being generally discarded. 

Do man's efforts lie properly in the domain of art? Is it 
man's most worthy ambition to advance in this direction — to 
delineate, picture or paint, or to carve in stone or mould in 
bronze ? What can art do for man, more than to amuse or divert 
him ? The best productions to be found in the line of art, are 
mere attempts to imitate nature, and they are always very un- 
successful ones at that. Man does nothing, can do nothing, that 
nature does not do much easier and more perfectly every day. 
Men can make curious, even wonderful machines, but the 
human body, with all its organs working together in harmony, 
is a thousand times more wonderful than any machine that man 
has yet invented. All the thoughts that man has, his very best, 
owe their origin to suggestions or hints that nature has fur- 
nished. 

Is it the mission of man to build great edifices, or to rear 
grand structures, such as temples, castles, palaces and pyra- 
mids ? Is it the founding of great cities, or the establishing of 
empires, that constitute man's proper employment, and is that 
an achievement of which man may justly be proud? Such 
works at best endure only for a brief and uncertain period, and 
it must be remembered that the hills and mountains that nature 
has formed surpass the works of man, not only in durability, 
but in magnitude and grandeur. 

In this country, as well as in Europe, it is generally con- 
sidered to be man's chief mission to acquire wealth, and in va- 



THE MISSION OF MAX. 63 

rious ways to surpass and surprise his fellow-man by the accu- 
mulations he makes. And yet the Bible, a book that all men 
affect to believe, condemns covetousness and wealth-getting in 
all its forms — even going so far as to declare over and over again 
that a rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. It must 
be evident enough to any intelligent man that the acquiring of 
wealth for the mere sake of having it. and without any immedi- 
ate demand or use for it. cannot be a worthy ambition or a de- 
sirable employment for any of God's creatures. The acquiring 
of a superabundance of means for the sake of simply shining or 
surpassing, or even for the mere purpose of enjoyment, is never 
the work of a sensible man. 

No, it cannot be that it was God's purpose, or that it was 
in accordance with God's mandates, that men should pursue 
such an ambitious and harrassing career as that which they 
uniformly follow when they reach what is called a high stage of 
civilization. It cannot be that it is man's most appropriate 
mission either to gain wisdom or accumulate wealth ; it can- 
not be his most worthy ambition to surpass or subdue some one 
who happens to be weaker or more unlucky than himself. 
What he considers his greatest, grandest achievements, are 
really only little things at best. No matter how eminent a man 
may be, nor how wealthy, how powerful, how prosperous or 
how splendid he may be, by reason of any gifts or qualities that 
he may possess, or through any good fortune that may have be- 
fallen him, he is still only a man, one among millions, and no 
higher, no holier, no worthier in any essential respect than any 
one of the humblest denizens of earth. With all his possessions, 
all his gifts and acquirements, he dies in the end like the beast 
of the field, and his body, like the commonest carcass, is finally 
covered with dust, to prevent it from polluting and poisoning 
the atmosphere of the neighborhood where it is finally placed. 

Some believe that it is man's chief mission to enjoy himself, 
to make himself at all times as happy as possible. But there is 
not enough of this claim to justify any special consideration in 



64 THE MISSION OF MAX. 

this place at this time. There is not the slightest evidence 
that such is the mission of man. Life at best is a serious 
business, and play and enjoyment must always be merely 
secondary matters. 

We are not able to find any evidence, either in revelation or 
in nature, that should lead us to believe that man is higher, 
worthier, or better than any one of God's creatures. He is an 
animal, like any other animal, made after the same pattern, and 
undoubtedly with the same purpose or design in view, and it 
cannot be that his mission is anything more than simply this : 
to live — to live as long and as well as he may, and at last prepare 
to die. That being his only reasonable aim and proper business 
in life, he should live peacefully, quietly, unostentatiously, and 
be ready to depart when the time comes. To be born, to live, to 
die — that is absolutely all there is of life. His duties and labors are 
confined chiefly to getting something to eat and finding some 
suitable shelter to protect him when the wind, the rain and the 
storms come. For such a man. with no loftier aims and no 
higher ambition than this, no laws, no ruler, no government is 
needed. Such things as these are required only by men who 
have marked out an entirely different career from this — one 
where war and conflict prevail, and where the blessings of peace 
and contentment are never found. 

THE PKESUMPTION OF MAX. 

God, I thank thee ! *' That is what the Pharisee said as he 
stood and prayed. He evidently wished God to understand that 
he was not ungrateful, and that he fully appreciated the fact 
that the Supreme Being had done a nice thing in creating such 
a man as himself and sending him out into the world to operate 
upon his own responsibility. He was so elated over his own 
exalted rank that he felt like giving God a sort of complimen- 
tary vote for what he had achieved. 

It may not be amiss to remark that the world even to-day is 

4 



THE PRESUMPTION OF MAN. 65 

full of people just like this Pharisee, and they are found 
in all countries in all the ordinary walks of life. There 
are rich people who think they are really better than their 
neighbors who are poor ; there are handsome people who think 
they are better than those who happen to be plain, and there are 
those who. being intellectually smart themselves, really imagine 
that they are more perfect creatures every way than those who 
intellectually are not so smart : and so there are people in the 
towns who have grown up with the idea that they are immeasur- 
ably better than those who are reared in the rural districts, and 
those who live in the old states flatter themselves that they are 
happier, and perhaps handsomer, than those who have the ad- 
vantages only of the states in the far west. Indeed, it is well 
known that there have been Pharisees from the beginning of the 
world down to the present time, and the supreme conceit which 
Pharisees are known to possess, is a crop that flourishes in all 
climes and in all the countries of the globe. 

Still another phase of this subject remains to be noticed. 
There are some men who work themselves into such a state of 
ecstasy or exaltation that they actually come to believe that by 
nature they are more or less divine. And if they do not really 
believe so themselves, they make every possible effort to induce 
people to believe that such is actually the case. Kings, con- 
querors and men of state are accustomed to array themselves 
in gorgeous attire, and then parade in public with the view of 
leaving an impression upon the common class of mortals that they 
are only a little lower than the gods ! They affect divinity, 
and they seem anxious to have people believe that if they are 
not gods already, they undoubtedly will be such when they be- 
come a little older. Men with such pretensions, naturally 
enough, will not tolerate criticism in any form, and they will 
not consent that either their ability or their motives shall be 
questioned. To doubt the infallibility of such beings, is simply 
treason and nothing else. And priests as a class, are apt to have 
a little weakness in this direction. They are apt to imagine that, 



66 



THE PRESUMPTION OF MAX. 



either by descent or election, they are divine, and if they are not 
such, they wonder why people persist in calling them divines. 
To question for a moment the uprightness of their conduct or 
the purity of their motives, is certain to be pronounced an act of 
heresy. They are supposed to be incapable of making mistakes, 
and to insinuate that such a thing as a mistake is possible for 
them, is simply scandalous and wicked. To undertake to criti- 
cize a divine, would be construed into an evident desire to start 
a controversy with God, and the man who should attempt such 
a foolish thing as that would find anathemas enough heaped 
upon his head to supply a whole town. The slightest sign of 
disapprobation in regard to anything done or said by any divine 
is certain to be construed as an attack upon the clergy as a 
body. And, by the way, such a thing is usually found to be 
rather a serious undertaking. 

This picture which we have briefly sketched was more com- 
mon a hundred years ago than it is now. Times have changed, 
even in a hundred years, and the people have changed with 
them. The days of devils and demons and witches and ghosts 
have gone by, simply because people, as a general thing, have 
ceased to believe in such existences. They were never anything 
more than creatures of the imagination, and when the imagi- 
nation ceases to act, devils and spooks fail to materialize. And in 
the same way people have largely ceased to believe in divine 
th ngs or divine creatures here below ; and failing to believe in 
them, they refuse to worship them. There is but one God in 
the whole universe. The days of infallibility, for earthly crea- 
tures, have departed never more to return. Under the present 
dispensation, every man must be ready to give an account of 
his stewardship, no matter what may be his rank, his position 
or his calling. Even the king upon his throne, or the judge 
upon the bench, as well as the minister, either in or out of his 
pulpit, is held responsible for his utterances and his actions. 
No man is permitted, at this day, to wrap himself in a garb of 
his own self-sufficiency and simply thank God that he is not as 



THE PRESUMPTION OF MAN. 



67 



other men are. Such a thing might have been done in former 
ages, in other countries, but it cannot be done in this free and en- 
lightened country of ours, at the close of the nineteenth century. 

It is well understood that all men are made of the same 
material, and no human being that lives has any right to claim 
that he is better than the rest of his race. There may have 
been such men in ages past, but there are no such men living 
to-day. All men were made after one and the same copy, and 
why should they not be substantially alike ? God made all men, 
the bad as well as the good, the young as well as the old, the 
black as well as the white, the subject as well as the sovereign, 
the layman as well as his priest, and why or how could there be 
any substantial difference between them? Adam and Eve, as 
we are assured in revelation, were the first parents of all of us, 
and so what right has any man to claim that he came from a 
little better stock than the rest of mankind ? Such a claim is 
absurd — and worse than that, it is false. There is no such 
superior man living. There never was such a man born. Why 
should men worship any mortal or any creature on this earth ? 
God alone is divine, and that is the end of the matter. Our Crea- 
ator tells us that we must have no other gods before him and in 
this case at least, I propose to obey his injunction. I have no 
hesitation at all in saying that idolatry and fetich-worship, in 
all its forms, shapes and manifestations, is a practice that ought 
to be held in abhorrence by every sensible man. 

It is in view of these considerations, and many more that I 
might notice, that I am not able to see or understand how or 
where any one man gets his right to exercise authority over 
other men. 

THE OBTRUSIVENESS OF MAN. 

This world is peopled by restless mortals. No matter how 
well they find things, they always want them different. They 
•are ready even to carry on a discussion with the Almighty, and 



68 



THE OBTRUSIVENESS OF MAN. 



they are more or less indignant because he fails to arrange 
everything according to their taste and judgment. Men as a 
general thing, especially if they are of the kind that imagine 
that they have great gifts through the blessings of Providence, 
want to help somebody. They are always obtruding their advice 
upon others, and sometimes their services, and they feel mortally 
offended if people decline to swallow their medicine and follow 
their prescriptions. It is a peculiar, as well as a melancholy 
fact, that a great portion of the time of some men is taken up 
with looking after the affairs of other folks — and in most cases 
this intermeddling is uncalled for and unwelcome. 

Men, as a rule, are most interested in people and things that 
are beyond their reach, and that are unknown as well as in- 
accessible. They pass by unheeded the poor and deserving at 
their own doors— it is the benighted heathen in distant lands that 
stirs their emotions and arouses their enthusiasm. They are 
always anxious to help the Lord, though they know well that 
the Lord does not need their help. They would do anything for 
the Lord, but the cries of the suffering and needy at home they 
fail to hear. They love to lecture and legislate, and they 
imagine they can reform the world by proceeding on some such 
line as that. These men are born reformers, and as such they 
are a continued source of suffering and annoyance to the com- 
munities in which they live. 

It is the nature of man to strive to do what plainly cannot 
be done — what is impracticable, if not actually impossible. Men 
are constantly putting forth efforts that in the end prove to be 
fruitless. Among other things, they will insist upon saving other 
people, and generally upon saving men out of their reach and 
beyond their power. They want to save sinners, save drunk- 
ards and spendthrifts, save wantons and rakes, save everybody but 
themselves. It is the lost sheep they are looking for ! This is a 
new kind of business that is becoming very popular at present, 
but it is doubtful whether it pays. As a rule, those who have to 
be saved by the efforts of others, by some Keeley-cure arrange- 



THE OBTRUSIVENESS OF MAN. 



69 



ment, or otherwise, are not worth saving. The only way that 
men ever reform is by reforming themselves, and if they are to 
be saved, it must be by efforts of their own. A man that is 
really lost, can no more be saved than a man that is dead 
can ever be made to live again. A man that is nearly lost may 
be saved, but that is a different matter entirely. Lost things are 
never found, for if they are found, of course they were not lost. 

How many things we are doing daily that produce no ap- 
preciable results ! We imagine we are doing good ; we go 
about spending our time, and perhaps some of our money, for 
what? To make a reputation, to be seen of men, to get a 
position in society, and finally gain an inheritance in heaven. 
But I doubt very much if heaven is to be gained in that way. 
Such efforts are to be classed with works of supererogation. 
They are like the sacrifices made to the gods by the ancients, 
and the ceremonies performed and the sufferings endured by 
men in the Middle Ages in order that people might redeem them- 
selves and obtain salvation. They imagined that by so doing 
they could appease the wrath of God, and possibly bribe him to 
do them some little favor. But people at the present time are 
coming to have a different belief. They do not believe in a 
God that can be bought or appeased in any manner. The God of 
to-day is an unchangeable Being ; he remains unmoved, and 
even prayer is of no service, so far as changing his plans or pur- 
poses is concerned. Hence it is that men of the present age are 
little given to sacrifices and ceremonies of any kind — with them, 
circumcision and uncircumcision are all the same. Few think 
now of propitiating God. They would as soon think of propitiat- 
ing the storm, the rocks, the sea or the sun. 

THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 

It may be well to examine more closely than we have yet 
done the relations which properly exist between groups or bodies 
of men and the individuals of which they are composed, and by 



70 THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 

so doing we shall be able to assign to both the value, the credit 
and the importance to which they are justly entitled. 

The first fact to be impressed upon the mind is this, that 
groups never accomplish anything as a whole ; the work that 
is done in their name is uniformly done by individuals. The 
word ' ' mass " when used to designate a group is a term used for 
convenience ; masses themselves accomplish nothing ; they 
are inanimate and powerless ; a mass is something that has 
only an imaginary existence. In all cases, where it is assumed 
that the mass is a powerful agency or element, it will be found 
that the struggle is between a few strong men on one side and a 
great many weak men on the other. The few are uniformly 
determined to overcome the many. We notice that fact in all 
organizations and in all the forms in which social life manifests 
itself — in church bodies, society gatherings, political parties, 
and in companies and groups of all kinds. A few men, and 
oftentimes some one man, wishes to have his own way and is 
determined to rule, no matter what happens. This is what all 
government proves to be in the end. The few who put them- 
selves forward and assume the attitude of leaders leave nothing 
for the individual to do, because they want to do everything 
themselves, or at least to dictate how everything should be done. 
Sometimes mere vanity is the motive, but generally the motive 
of such men is one of unadulterated selfishness. 

But when the truth comes to be finally revealed, it will be 
found that one man is as good as another, and the mistake that 
is made in all governments, is in rendering men helpless and 
dependent, instead of teaching them to do their own work and 
thus rendering them strong and self-reliant. It is a great blun- 
der to ignore the existence of any man in society, even the 
humblest citizen that can be found, and it is a fatal error for a 
man to allow others to do for him what he could do as well or 
perhaps better himself. Dependence leads to indolence and in- 
capacity, and indolence and incapacity to slavery in the end. 

"What would the world do without the individual, as opposed 



THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 71 

to the community or the whole body of the people ? With- 
out the individual, there would be no world, no society, no 
people: without units, we should have no numbers, and so with- 
out individuals there would be no race, no party, no sect. Just 
so far as we go on destroying individuals, we go on destroying 
the body to which the individual belongs. If we take one from 
a thousand, what we have left is no longer a thousand, but only 
nine hundred and ninety-nine, an entirely new number. Then 
why despise the units, the elements, the individuals of which 
every whole is composed ? They are everything, and the world 
itself could not endure without their continued existence. How 
absurd, it is to talk about destroying a part to save the whole ! 
No, that is never done, though we may destroy a part with the 
hope of saving the remainder, which is a different thing from 
saving the whole. When a part is lost, clearly enough, the 
original whole is gone. 

It must be remembered that all that has thus far been done in 
this world has been the work solely of individuals. Individuals 
built the Pyramids, laying up the blocks of stone one by one. 
Individuals constitute armies, individuals lead them, and it is 
the bodies of individuals that cover the field after the battle 
is lost or won. 

• ' Take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of 
themselves." We should make every effort to save the in- 
dividual, and not destroy him ruthlessly, as was the prevailing 
practice in the Middle Ages, and as the practice still continues at 
the present day. 

The present custom of sacrificing one or more men for the 
public good, is a great wrong done in all cases to the one that is 
sacrificed. Uniformly the sacrifice made does not produce the 
slightest good, and in all cases it is an act of the grossest inhu- 
manity. No sacrifice should be made under any circumstances ; 
it was a foolish thing for Abraham to prepare to sacrifice 
his son, and as for poor Isaac, there was not the slightest 
justification or excuse for taking his life. No man should be 



72 THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 

sacrificed, for no one is better or worse than any other man. 

Nations never do anything of themselves ; they are always 
instruments, always servants under the direction of some leader. 
They always follow but one leader at a time ; it would be im- 
possible for them to obey the orders of more than one. Hence 
it follows that, in a proper sense, the work of nations or peoples 
is always the work of individuals. Even in ' America, it is 
always some leading spirit that guides the masses, either for 
weal or woe — it is either Washington or Hamilton or Jefferson 
or Calhoun or Lincoln or Cleveland or David B. Hill. The work 
is wholly that of some leading men. Louis XI Y. was entirely 
right when he said : "I am the state. " So were Charlemagne 
and William the Conqueror the leaders of the people in their 
day ; so was Alexander, Csesar, Napoleon ; so was Socrates, 
Plato and Demosthenes. The nation itself has no mind of its 
own, it has no will, and so it always follows the guidance of some 
leader ; and it is the same with the party, the army, the multi- 
tude. Such bodies always have a leader and never more than 
one at a time : they could do little without a leader, and still 
less with two. What would an army do if it were not led? 
Having no mind, no brain, it could not possibly have any object 
upon which to concentrate its efforts. If an army had two lead- 
ers, one would be the real leader, and the other no leader at all. 
It could not possibly move in different directions, following two 
different men at the same time. Christ was entirely right when 
he said that a man could not serve two masters. There can be no 
bodies but organized bodies, and every organization implies one 
head. 

To enable the reader to get a clearer idea of the work done 
by individuals, the following illustrations may be of some ser- 
vice. We say one army defeats another army, as if it were 
all one single performance, when in fact it is made up of an un- 
limited number of separate factors. When the battle occurs, 
one soldier kills two or more of the enemy, another wounds 
four, and so on through the whole army, each one doing some 



THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 73 

little damage on his own account and thus contributing to the 
final result. The officers, the gunners, the trumpeters, and even 
the horses and mules all have their share in the grand perform- 
ance. Instead of being a single action, every battle is made up 
of an indefinite number of battles of greater or less importance 
— skirmishes, onsets and assaults at different points on the line, 
which in many cases extends for miles. Each man. each group, 
each regiment, each division, each corps fights its own battle, 
precisely as if it were fighting alone, and hence it happens that 
every battle is made up of an unlimited number of independent 
conflicts. 

Suppose ten men are engaged in bunding a house. They do 
not all build it — in fact none of them build it. One set dig the 
cellar, another build the wall and do the mason work. Another 
set deliver the lumber : and going back further yet. a distinct 
set cut down the trees and draw the logs to the mill, where still 
another set saw the logs and convert them into boards. Another 
set make the nails, while another set make the glass and another 
the blinds. Then there are the carpenters — they certainly do 
not build the house, though they do much towards building it. 
But what one man does, no other man does. One puts on a 
board here, another puts a post there ; one man puts in the 
windows and another hangs the doors. Finally, the painter 
comes along and does his part. Thus we see. if we come to 
analyze the blinding of a house, or the doing of any job. that 
instead of being a single effort, it is made up of an incalculable 
number of efforts, and instead of its being the work of a single 
day or month or year, it is. properly considered, the work of an 
incalculable number of years. In fact, there is reaUy no beginning 
and no end to any wo~k or to any ivent. It takes time for the trees 
to grow and the rocks to form, and if the trees did not grow and 
the rocks did not form, where would we get the material from 
which buhdings are constructed ? 

The simplest group is that composed of two individuals, for 
instance, two men. They are together, we say. but they are as 



74 THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 

much apart as if they were miles from each other. What one 
does, of course the other does not do ; the steps one takes or 
the movements one makes, the other does not make. We say 
that they go together and work together, but so far as what 
they do is concerned, they might as well work separately. Sup- 
pose they tear down a house or build a fence, or do anything 
imaginable. Is it not clear that each one does his own work — 
never does what the other does — any more than he would if 
they were working a mile apart ? So it is in every case when 
we sp2ak of what any number or any body of men do. The 
only work that is done, or that can be done, in ordinary life, is done by 
individuals. The result is single, as an army is defeated or a 
house is built — yet it is always the result of the working of 
innumerable individual forces. Suppose two men carry a load 
together, as we sometimes say. Is it not clear that each one 
carries only a part and that what one carries, the other does 
not carry ? 

Just so it is with what the state does ; the state is a sham, 
a delusion. It is a mere blind used to prevent the people from 
seeing or realizing just who does the wicked work that is per- 
formed. It is a common thing to say the state does this or that, 
but it should be remembered that the state as a whole never 
does anything. Everything is the work of some individual. 
What is done in all cases, is what the man who happens to be 
governor does, or the man who happens to be judge or sheriff 
does, and in every instance it is the work of a simple, ordinary 
man. So it is with the national government. We say it was 
the government that subdued the South and restored the Union, 
when the fact was that the transaction had nothing to do with 
the government, it being merely a contest between northern 
and western states on one side, and southern states on the other. 
We say the South as a body rebelled, but the fact was, only a 
certain number of individuals rebelled and they induced the rest 
to follow. We say the United States made a treaty with Great 
Britain, while in fact, perhaps, it was only the man who hap- 



THE DOCTRINE OF REVENGE. 



75 



pened to be president and the man who happened to be secre- 
tary of state that did the business on one side, while certain rep- 
resentative men in England did the business on the other side. 
The public should never lose sight of this one material fact : it 
is the trick of state-craft to keep telling what the state does and 
what the state orders, when the fact is, in every instance, that 
it is simply what is wanted or what is done by one or more individuals. 
So, the judge on the bench delights to tell what " the court thinks,'' 
what "the court decrees," as if "the court" in any particu- 
lar case were somebody greater and somebody better than Mr. 
So-and-So who happens to be sitting on the bench ! And so 
people will tell what the Lord wants, and what the Lord orders, 
when it is merely what they themselves want in every instance. I 
beg to add that I abominate fictions at all times and in all 
places. Fictions are always lies, and lies always harm or wrong 
somebody. 

THE DOCTRINE OF REVENGE. 

Our whole doctrine of punishment as manifested in every 
department of life where government is exercised, is based upon 
the principle of revenge. Justice itself is always an avenger. 
Even the Bible, the source of all our ideas of what is moral and 
proper, teaches in unmistakable language the doctrine of an eye 
for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But just at present intelli- 
gent men are not searching the scriptures for instruction on 
matters of right and propriety, as they did a hundred years ago 
or more. The human mind is undergoing a constant develop- 
ment in connexion with such questions as these, and men, both 
as individuals and in the mass, believe and think no more as they 
did a few centuries since. 

Revenge is simply a manifestation of anger and resentment, 
feelings which are natural growths in the human breast, but 
which are the source of more harm to the human race than all 
other passions combined. It may be natural for men to be 



76 



THE DOCTRINE OF REVENGE. 



angry, but it is always well in such cases to follow the Bible 
injunction to "Be angry and sin not." It may be that, as is so 
often said, revenge is sweet, but under any circumstances, 
whether in private life or in public affairs, revenge is always an 
expensive luxury. Every nation, every individual, finds that 
the business of punishing enemies is always costly, and it is 
often ruinous. The efforts we make to be revenged of our in- 
juries, never bring good results. To cause ourselves trouble and 
pain merely to make others suffer, is the most senseless and 
absurd policy that any one can pursue. A far better way is to 
let our enemies go on in their career, and see how long they will 
prosper and where they will stop. A man who will wrong us 
will wrong others as well, and a man who makes a practice of 
violating the rights and offending the feelings of other men is 
sure to be detested by society, and he will meet with that fate 
which uniformly comes to transgressors in the end. As a rule, it 
is well to let evil-doers alone, and Providence, fate or society will 
mete out to them such treatment as they seem to deserve. The 
best way to treat such men is to pass them by without notice, 
and as a general thing to ignore them entirely. 

Eevenge is not only unreasoning, it is also brutal ; it has not 
a single feature that is human. No man ever strengthens his 
own case by taking revenge upon his adversary. It never settles 
difficulties ; but, on the contrary, it uniformly makes matters 
worse. Instead of promoting peace, it usually renders peace im- 
possible, and an enemy who has been punished by some avenger 
is never appeased thereby, but is made ten times as bitter and as 
desperate as he was before. Instead of lessening the number of 
wrongs, revenge always multiplies them. A man who is sent to 
prison or who is punished in some other way, always feels that 
he has been wronged, and when he obtains his liberty he sets at 
work immediately to make matters even again. 

Then, consider for a moment the utter absurdity of our 
whole proceeding in this ' ' eye for an eye " business. A man 
strikes us, and sooner or later we strike him back. Does this 



THE DOCTRINE OF REVENGE. 77 

balance the account ? No. it opens a new page on the ledger. 
We say it is to balance the blow we received, but the other party 
never looks upon the matter in any such light. With him the 
blow returned passes as an original offence, and if the theory is 
correct on which each party proceeds, there will never be any 
end to blows till one or the other dies, and even then it might be 
that their near friends would take up the contest. I must say, 
revenge is senseless, and it always defeats its own aims, if indeed 
it has any real aims. Moreover, it puts the avenger entirely in 
the wrong : he not only places himself on a level with the 
offender, but he even plays a lower and more wicked part than 
the offender himself. The original transgressor had some excuse 
perhaps for what he did, but the avenger has none. The former 
felt, no doubt, that the blow was deserved and he was doing 
right, while the other party, acting with deliberation it may be. 
delivers a return blow not with the hope of mending matters, 
but with the design merely of causing pain to one whom he dis- 
likes. It must not be forgotten that an avenger is always in the 
wrong ; he can never have any excuse to justify his conduct. 
The veiy most that could be said for him would be that he be- 
haves like a madman. 

Let us inquire into the effects of punishments inflicted ac- 
cording to law. and see how they work in practice. Do they 
generally make things better : do they make anybody richer, or 
even happier ? Do they prevent wrongs ? Do they lessen 
sorrows or relieve the suffering ? No. they never do. but on the 
contrary they generally increase sorrows and intensify sufferings. 
What a miserable consolation it must be for one who has been 
offended to see his enemy suffer ! It neither repairs his losses 
nor relieves him from pain, if he has been injured. What earthly 
benefit can it be to anybody to cut off a criminal's ears, or put 
out his eyes, or confine him in prison, or even to deprive him of 
life ? There can be absolutely none. 

Finally, the fact must never be lost sight of. that the criminal 
has just as much right to commit his wrongs as we have to 



78 THE DOCTRINE OF REVENGE. 

punish him for what he has done. One man's person or property 
is as sacred as that of any other man. In the sight of God and 
the world, the criminal has just as many rights as any other mart : 
perhaps before God and the world he is not a criminal. In fact, 
when we come down to the bottom of the matter, we are all 
criminals. 

We make our laws and lay down our rules for the criminal. 
But has not the criminal the same right to lay down his rules 
and make his laws as other men have ? No law can deprive any 
human being of what are properly his rights — and one of man's 
inalienable rights is that of being treated at all times like a man. 
No law can deprive him of his manhood. Society judges the 
criminal, and in return the cri m inal judges society. Where is 
the difference, or where is the advantage? 

PROGRESS AND CIVILIZATION. 

The people of this country have remarkable ideas on the 
nature and characteristics of what is called progress. They 
have impressed upon their minds the familiar thought that 
this age of ours is very progressive, meaning thereby that the 
people of the present day are advancing and are constantly mak- 
ing rapid strides toward the attainment of perfection. But this 
is. to say the least, an unfortunate mistake. It is true that we 
are daily making progress, but it is the progress that leads to 
decay and final dissolution. Age of itself leads to decline, and 
it cannot be denied that all the civilized nations of the earth are 
much older than they were when they were still in their primi- 
tive stage of development. It should not be forgotten that a state 
of civilization is necessarily a state of natural disease and de- 
cline. 

In theory, the grade of morality and excellence that pre- 
vails to-day, is just as high, perhaps, as it ever has been, but 
unfortunately the practice in most cases is far below the stand- 
ard that has been established for the proper conduct of men. 



PROGRESS AND CIVILIZATION. 



71) 



People have sympathies and sentiments now, as they had a 
thousand or two thousand years ago, but as a general thing such 
feelings have now become decidedly morbid in their character. 
People love each other at present probably as much as they 
ever did, but this love is usually of a selfish or sensual nature. 
People are honest in certain cases, but only because they have 
become possessed of the conception that honesty is the best 
policy. People are virtuous and moral, but only so far as the 
law or custom requires them to be such. People are benevolent, 
but chiefly for the reputation that benevolence brings. People 
are religious and devout, but far too often the church is prized 
by them only so far as it will enable them to stand well in 
society and allow them to gather in a bountiful harvest from 
their customers or patrons. And so on through the whole long 
list of qualities and acquirements that usually serve to complete 
the make-up of one who is known as a worthy and respectable 
man. 

Is there any one who would presume to say that people are 
either healthier or happier than people were who lived in former 
times in a more simple way ? People as a rule are better housed 
than they were a hundred or more years ago, but it is really a 
question whether that fact alone can be looked upon as an im- 
portant advantage for their side. People nowadays are so ac- 
customed to living in overheated rooms that their bodies have 
become abnormally tender and sensitive, and hence they suffer 
far more from exposure to the elements than primitive people 
ever did ; for this and other reasons they are liable to attack 
from diseases that are entirely unknown to people who live in 
what is called the uncivilized state. People in our times have 
a greater variety of food, and they have it served more regularly 
than was found to be practicable in former times, but it is by no 
means certain that either this variety or this abundance has been 
the source of a greater amount of happiness to mankind. It is 
well known that it is a common practice among cultivated 
people to eat too freely and too frequently, and a large share of 



80 PROGRESS AND CIVILIZATION. 

the diseases peculiar to civilization may be traced to the food 
which people eat and the manner in which it is prepared and 
consumed. People in civilized times boast of their wisdom, 
their learning, their accomplishments, but it is well known that 
most of these acquirements are valueless, and the commonest 
native that dwells in the forest could give them scores of points 
on matters that pertain to the ordinary affairs of life. 

Again, is it an evidence of progress and advancement that 
machines should do most of the work, and that the laborer should 
become himself a mere machine ? Is it a sign of progress and 
advancement that, with the improvements, so called, made in 
the line of industry, the workman should degenerate into the 
smallest part of a man — a human being who can do one simple 
thing, only one thing, and must depend upon capital for his 
livelihood ? Then, think how civilization adds to the amount of 
labor that men are required to perform ! The native stops when 
he has enough, but the enlightened citizen is never satisfied. 

It is a curious fact that so far as civilization is a factor in 
life, it is a force that is antagonistic to nature. The lessons of 
nature are uniformly ignored, and man in his ambitious career 
seems determined to make his own way through the world 
without heeding the lessons that God in his wisdom gave him. 
He is inclined to set up art as something above nature, and he 
places more reliance upon what he calls science than he does 
upon the revelations made by the Creator. The ordinary animal 
lives naturally and never strives to build up an imaginary king- 
dom for itself outside of the world in which it finds itself. 
Hence the animal lives quietly, contentedly, peacefully, and it 
never undertakes to do what evidently the Creator never in- 
tended that it should do. Man is also an animal, but one of an 
entirely different character from the ordinary animal. Man is 
contented with nothing as he finds it. He thinks of nothing ex- 
cept what he considers progress, and his imagination, his con- 
ceit, and his ambition carry him to astonishing lengths. In the 
early part of his career, while he is young and comparatively 

5 



PROGRESS AND CIVILIZATION. 81 

helpless, he believes in God and Providence, but as he grows 
older and stronger, he becomes more confident of his own 
ability, and he is inclined to trust wholly to his own guidance. 

There is no question but that what man calls knowledge is 
the source of most of his present misery and wretchedness. It 
is evident enough that man is altogether too self-conscious — he 
knows too much. The ordinary animals know less, or rather 
they think and reflect less, and therefore they suffer less. There 
is undoubtedly a substantial foundation for the Bible thought 
indicated by these words : "In the day ye eat thereof, then 
your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing 
good and evil." The sin of mankind is in knowing too much. 
As long as men were content to remain as animals in the 
natural state, they knew nothing of sin. and they had no 
occasion for feelings of shame, but when their eyes were opened, 
and they saw they were naked, they felt the necessity of dis- 
guising themselves with fig leaves, and their descendants have 
been doing the same thing from that day down to the present 
time. 

Absurdly enough men have come to believe that civilization 
is progress upward, when a careful review of all the facts of the 
case shows that civilization really is progress downward. An 
animal that needs no clothes, that knows nothing of sin, and in 
fact does not pretend to know anything at all, has a good, sound, 
healthy body and hives and rears its young in a sensible and suc- 
cessful way. With man the case is different — the civilized man, 
I mean. The savage being much nearer to the animal, and there- 
fore living much more naturally, is far sounder and healthier 
every way than the man who lives in cities and towns. There 
is scarcely a sound and really healthy man to be found in civil- 
ized life — the superabundance of doctors and doctor books, to say 
nothing of dispensaries and apothecary shops generally, that are 
found all over our land, shows clearly enough that there is 
somebody sick in the family pretty nearly all the time. With 
savages and the lower animals, health is the natural, normal 



82 



PROGRESS AXD CIVILIZATION. 



state ; among civilised men, and especially among civilized 
women, disease is the normal and prevailing state. I venture to 
say that a perfect man, a man as nature intended man should 
be, does not exist in civilized life. In fact, it is absolutely 
impossible for a man to live as men do in civilized life and be a 
healthy man. Civilization for man, like domestication for 
animals, means deterioration, degradation, and finally decay 
and death. Already he is becoming toothless, and hairless and 
toeless, and if he keeps on as he is doing now for a few hundred 
years more, he will finally degenerate into a gigantic oyster, a 
mollusk that consists mostly of stomach, that is sedentary in its 
habits and careless of its future, that lives chiefly to eat and 
drink, and eats and drinks mainly to live and enjoy itself. It 
will be remembered that the oyster is jawless and toothless, and 
that hence it takes its- food exclusively in the fluid form. Per- 
haps some such fate awaits the coming toothless man. 

Men delight to talk about the progress made in government, 
but, unfortunately, the progress of government is uniformly from 
bad to worse, rarely from bad to better. As often happens with 
moving bodies, government in its progress is carried along by the 
force of its own velocity or its momentum. Government is not 
the work of one man, but of many ; to make a change, especially 
for the better, requires the combined action, or the consent, of a 
large number of individuals, and these men, having diverse in- 
terests, are usually slow to agree. Legislation, with some rare 
exceptions, makes matters worse, and the only remedy that 
masses find for their troubles is in revolution. Sad as the fact is, 
it is a fact that when the people want a radical change in their 
government, they find that their only way is to tear down and 
build over again. To repair with success any portion of the 
governmental structure, is impossible. To retrace steps taken in 
the way of legislation, is usually impracticable. 

People have the erroneous impression that in a democracy, 
or a republic, all wrongs can be remedied by a resort to the 
ballot, but in practice it is found that such a theory does not 



PROGRESS AXD CIVILIZATION. 83 

work. The ballot, in different ways, develops more evils than it 
remedies. The people under that form of government take al- 
together too much for granted. They imagine that because they 
have the power, eveiything must necessarily go right, and yet as 
a matter of fact, it is found that a great many things go wrong. 
Instead of the people doing all the business and having all the 
power, under a republican form of government, they really do 
hut little of the business and have but a small share of the power. 
While they believe and feel that they are doing all of the work, 
they are really doing only an insignificant portion of it. The 
men who do the work, in most cases, are the bosses and schemers. 

Government can never materially improve, because there 
are so many men of influence who have a pecuniary interest in 
having things go wrong. Robbers and thieves delight in con- 
flagrations, because of the opportunities they offer for plunder. 
The doctors have no interest in having the climate salubrious, 
and rindertakers are never so prosperous as when deaths are 
numerous. The lawyer prefers discord to contentment and the 
soldier delights in war. because war usually brings either death 
or promotion. So in matters of government — those who call 
themselves the state, namely, the officers, have one interest, and 
the people themselves have another that is directly the opposite. 
The law-makers want large revenues and large receipts, while 
the people delight in nothing so much as low taxes and fight 
burdens of all kinds. 

Government, or the state, ought to be a model for the people 
in all things, and yet in too many cases it sets a bad example 
which the people are too prone to follow. So long as the officers 
of the government are dishonest, unscrupulous and rascally, how 
can we expect the masses who are under them to be any better ? 
People as a rule fail to appreciate how much our government has 
to do with determining men's morals and shaping their character 
and conduct. The Bible in which we believe has also a powerful 
influence in the same direction. But when the Bible gives us 
such models as Moses. David and Solomon, what progress in 



84 



THE MATTER OF BELIEF. 



government can be expected while people place their whole 
faith in such a book as that ? 

It is true we have in these days more government than they 
had in olden times, with more laws, more conditions, more re- 
straints, more taxes, more burdens and more schemes than were 
ever known before. But is this a sign of progress ? Is this to 
be taken as an evidence that people are happier or better than 
they were ? To my mind, if these facts prove anything, they 
prove directly the reverse. 

THE MATTER OF BELIEF. 

A change in one point of a man's belief implies a correspond- 
ing change in the remaining portions of his belief. When people 
disbelieve in the existence of a devil, they must from that fact 
alone cease to believe in the Christian religion in its pure and 
original form. According to Christ's teaching, God is the father, 
he is the good spirit, while the devil, on the other hand, is the 
contriver of evil, the tempter and persecutor of men — the bad 
spirit in the proper sense of the term. But when the devil disap- 
pears from the stage, and there is one spirit instead of two, a 
radical change must arise at once in the character and status of 
God himself. So, again, when we cease to believe in literal im- 
mortality, in the life of the body after death, in happiness to 
reward the good and in sorrows and pangs to torment and punish 
the wicked, we cease to believe in Christianity in the ordinary 
acceptation of the word. Such being our belief, we practically 
discard Christ as the mediator of mankind, and we reject the 
Bible, the New Testament, at least, if not the Old. We even 
reject God as being the Almighty, for if God does not punish, he 
certainly is not God, he is not the law-giver and the ruler of the 
universe. There is no middle ground in this business, a man 
either believes or disbelieves. As Christ says, people are either 
with him or against him — to be half and half is impossible. 

The consequence of these new beliefs which begin to prevail 



THE MATTER OF BELIEF. 



85 



among intelligent people, is that men have changed their whole 
idea of evil. They do not believe in evil in the true and normal 
sense of the word. What seems to be a present evil may turn 
out to be an ultimate good. But if there is no real evil, if evil 
itself is actually a good, why should we have punishment? As 
men are coming to view things nowadays, everything is neces- 
sary, everything comes from one and the same source, and is 
part of one and the same plan. Then, how should anything 
offend man ? There is nothing that is bad, nothing that really 
deserves our resentment, and for this reason even our enemies 
are our friends and we should not hate or persecute them. How 
noticeably different is a man's treatment of his enemies and 
antagonists now from the treatment that was measured out to 
enemies up to within a century since ! And how the number of 
our enemies and of the men we hate has diminished within the 
last fifty years ! Not a great while since every man outside of 
our family, our tribe, our city, our country, our faith, was our 
enemy, and as such it was our duty to rob him or kill him if we 
found an opportunity. Now things are entirely different 
among civilized men. No man is our enemy for more than the 
present moment, while our rage lasts and the devil remains 
master of our heart. We fight a man to-day and cut his throat, 
if we have a chance ; to-morrow we are ready to strike a treaty 
of peace with him and draw him to our bosom as our long-lost 
brother. Was that not the way things went when the war of 
the Rebellion ended ? The two sides could hardly love each 
other enough, when they met — at least, that is what they have 
been saying to each other ever since the smoke of the battle- 
fields lifted in I860. 

Under such a theory and such a state of things as this, what 
nse have we for prisons and chains, or for punishments of any 
kind? We have at last learned that even our enemies have 
rights, feelings and interests quite as well as we ourselves have, 
and that it is just as much their privilege, if not their duty, to 
antagonize us as it was ours to oppose them. This is the new 



86 THE MATTER OF BELIEF. 

religion, the revolutionary thought, that, in all matters that per- 
tain to social life, is to-day changing the face of things through- 
out the civilized world. We are even becoming conscious, 
slowly but certainly conscious, of the fact that criminals are 
merely our enemies and opposers, and as such they are entitled 
to all the forbearance and fair treatment that is usually accorded 
to our enemies in the field, when they are so unfortunate as to 
be taken prisoner. 

What we have shown to be true in regard to a change of 
views on certain points in religion, would also be found to be 
true if we came to consider changes of opinion in regard to mat- 
ters of government. When a man begins to see that there is 
little need of government in families, he will also soon see that 
there is little need of government in schools, or in institutions 
of any kind, and when he gets so far as to see that government, 
in its ordinary application, is not needed in families or in schools, 
he will finally begin to doubt that government is necessary in 
any of the affairs or relations of life. 

A few words might be added in this connexion in regard 
to false beliefs. It is really surprising to observe how much has 
been accomplished in the history of this world through the 
medium of false theories, or false hypotheses. In fact it may 
be well to remark that all theories prove to be false in the end, 
no matter how popular they may have been at some time. 
Every theory has its day, and one that is held to be sound at 
present, is sure to be discarded by everybody as unsound at some 
future day. It is a curious fact that people seem to get along 
as well in many cases on a false theory as on a true one. When 
a man finds which is the wrong road, he often ascertains which 
is the right one, for if it is not this one on this side, it must be 
that one on that side. There is a good sound basis for every 
theory, as there is a reason for every thought, even for one 
which is considered most idle and senseless. 

We have had wrong theories in the matter of religion, gov- 
ernment and law, but no doubt those theories, which have been 



THE HATTER OF BELIEF. 87 

in vogue so many centuries, have clone humanity some good, as 
well as much harm. For many hundreds of years people have 
believed that it was alike proper and necessary that men should 
obey and suffer. That was the doctrine our Bible taught, and 
as men believed in the Bible, they accepted its doctrines as 
sacred and infallible. But now that people are coming to ignore 
the Bible as authority, they discard some of the doctrines which 
that book teaches. Instead of referring to the Bible, men con- 
sult their own hearts and inquire whether it is right that one 
man shall govern other men. That is the great question that is 
now under consideration all over the world, especially in Europe 
and America. 

The trouble is. or rather has been, that people believed the 
Bible too faithfully and that they took its contents too literally. 
The Bible made civilized men what they were in the Middle 
Ages. Although the people believed themselves to be Christians 
in those days, they became, mainly through the influence of the 
Bible, at the same time intolerant, hard-hearted and barbarous. 



The articles which have thus far appeared in this work are 
preliminary in character, and the purpose of their introduction 
was to prepare the way for a better understanding of the new 
doctrine to which the following pages are especially devoted, 
namely, that no man has a right to govern or judge other men : that 
no man has a light to demand tribute or sacrifice from others, and 
that no man has a right to apply force and punish his fellow man 
under any circumstances or in any manner. 



FREEDOM FOR FREEMEN. 



There is absolutely no foundation for the claim that is usually- 
put forth that one individual should exercise authority over 
other individuals. The strongest claim in that direction that 
could be brought forward would be that in the case of the parent 
and the child. But the only ground that could be given for the 
exercise of authority in the case of the parent would be the lack 
of intelligence on the part of the child, and the likelihood of its 
going astray without parental guidance and restraint. However, 
in society, that would be a dangerous doctrine, if carried to its 
ultimate consequences. It would lead to a government by the 
strong over the weak, whether that weakness was one of body or 
mind. It would lead to despotism in all cases where there is no 
power or ability to resist. But no one at the present time dares 
to maintain the doctrine that justice and strength are synony- 
mous, or that justice and strength have any relations whatever. 

Shall we be allowed to coerce people in any case and force 
our ideas upon them ? Most certainly not. We have no right to 
insist that it is our privilege to compel men to adopt our ways and 
take our medicine, even when we believe that our ways and our 
remedies would result in a benefit to them. To advocate such a 
doctrine would be decidedly dangerous. It would be a defence 
for any despotic or arbitrary course which a man might choose 
to pursue. Such a doctrine would lead to the end of all liberty. 
As a matter of fact, all men who are not slaves are as capable of 



FREEDOM FOR FREEMEN. 89 

deciding what they want and what they ought to have as they 
would be if they were the wisest and strongest men in the world. 
They may make a mistake in their preference, or in their line of 
action, but to make mistakes is one of the privileges of all human 
beings, so long as those mistakes do not injuriously affect other 
parties. 

Where does the state get its authority to make a slave of me, 
to place me under its feet and trample me in the dust ? ' ' Un- 
fortunately," is the reply, "you were born in this country, and 
hence you must submit to its rules and government. We must 
have government and everybody must submit, or we could not 
get along. A man must submit to government, even though he 
knows it to be unjust." Yes, that is the old, old plea, and it has 
been heard at different times and on different occasions ever 
since men began to make history. Kings have made this plea, 
tyrants have made it, and even rascals and robbers have found it 
very serviceable in justifying their wicked proceedings. And so 
men have patiently submitted to continued wrong and injustice, 
believing that because things have always been so, things must 
always remain so. Kings, tyrants, robbers and rascals are not 
wholly, perhaps, not principally, to blame in this matter. The 
people surrender too readily and they bear the yoke of slavery 
too submissively and cheerfully. When despotism finds such a 
wide and well-beaten path presented to view, what is to prevent 
it from entering that path at its pleasure ? 

There never was a greater mistake made by mankind than 
when they were induced to believe that the world could not get 
along without a large amount of state rule and state manage- 
ment. What reason is there for doubting that we could get 
along well with nine-tenths less state machinery than we now 
have ? Suppose we did not have so much government, so many 
departments and so many officers, so many laws, so many public 
buildings, so many salaries, and finally such enormous taxes to 
pay, who is there who would declare that we could not get 
along just as well as we are doing now ? 



90 FREEDOM FOR FREEMEN. 

The desire to rule, to govern, to administer laws ! Why 
should any one have such a morbid appetite as this, unless pos- 
sessed of a brutal and selfish nature ? If people want their own 
way. as most people do, why should they not be permitted to 
have it. provided it is not at the expense of some other person ? 
And still people will go on struggling to bend others to their 
will, and seeking to mould them in such a manner as to best fit 
their plans, their notions and their purposes ! What people 
really want is to be let alone — in that freedom essentially con- 
sists — and so long as they are not doing any harm to others, it 
would seem that so much should be conceded to them. 

Government itself implies an absence of freedom. The 
more freedom there is, the less government there must be. It is 
nonsense to talk of having both freedom and government for 
the same people or persons at one and the same time. Freedom 
implies an absence of outside restraint, but where there is gov- 
ernment there must necessarily be restraint to some extent. 

It is the height of absurdity to talk about the freedom of 
individuals in a state where they are constantly hampered and 
harassed with a thousand unnecessary conditions and obliga- 
tions, and where they are kept constantly on the alert for fear 
they will transgress some new law or regulation and thus find 
themselves landed eventually in a prison, a jail or a mad-house. 
Where there is so much innovation and so many changes of law, 
there cannot possibly be much liberty. And this state of things 
arises wholly from the determination of some men to either rule 
or ruin. 3Ien who are possessed of power seem to have only 
two leading motives : one is to advance their own interests and 
gratify their own desires, and the other is to force their ideas 
upon other men and compel the acceptance of those ideas as 
law, no matter how great the cost may prove to be to others. 

Freedom consists not. as many suppose, in an absence of 
restraint in some things, coupled with the most oppressive sub- 
jugation in other things. Even the slave is permitted to do 
some tilings according to his own will and preference. But for 



FREEDOM FOR FREEMEX. 91 

all that, he is none the less a slave. A man to be free should 
be free at all times and in all respects. Part freedom is an 
illusion ; part freedom is only a source of aggravation. A man 
who has no idea of what freedom is. because he has never had 
any freedom, is not apt to feel its absence like one who has en- 
joyed freedom and therefore knows what its blessings are. A 
man who assumes to be the master of another, should be his 
master in all things, and should care for him as he would for a 
mass of inanimate matter that is known to be destitute of both 
sentiment and will. 

How absurd it is to talk about freedom and independence 
even in a country like ours in America ! How utterly powerless 
are the people of this coirntry after all ! How completely are 
they in the power of their rulers, even though these rulers hold 
their power only for a limited time ! Suppose the people of the 
community, of any city or of any count}', want a certain whole- 
some law passed or a rule established, could they be sure of 
having it? Xo. they would be pretty sure of not getting it. In 
themselves they are utterly dependent and helpless. They must 
wait, they must petition, labor, beg. They must fee a man 
here and bribe another there. And when the business is all 
through, they are very likely not to get what they asked for 
after all. Their bill must first pass one house and then another 
house, and it must finally have the signature of the governor. 
In these two houses there are men with a great diversity of in- 
terests and opinions ; they are men with all sorts of characters 
and representing many kinds of business and professions. Every 
man there has his own individual axe to grind first, and then 
if he has any time left he will look after the interests of his 
constituents. He is very tardy in granting the requests of the 
people, unless his own interests are advanced at the same time. 
But suppose the bill passes both houses. It goes to the governor 
and must be signed by him before it becomes a law. Perhaps 
the governor belongs to a different party from the one which 
controls the legislature at the time. Perhaps he has some 



92 FREEDOM FOR FREEMEN. 

prejudices against the bill or against the one who introduced it. 
In that case the governor vetoes the bill and. if no two-third vote 
can be secured to pass it again, it fails to become a law. and all 
the money and time expended in securing its passage goes for 
naught. It must not be forgotten that under this boasted re- 
publican form of government of ours, the supreme law-giver 
after all is he who possesses the veto power. If a man has a 
just and clear case and takes it to a court, he runs some chance 
of getting what he is honestly entitled to. But not so with a 
claim or request that must be presented to congress or a legis- 
lature. The business of our legislature is not to dispense justice, 
but to pass such laws as are found to be for the interest of the 
members of the dominant party. 

When will people be able to get it into their heads that there 
is just as much government in a republic as there is under any 
other system of government ? It is only a change in arrange- 
ment, and there is merely another set of rulers selected in a dif- 
ferent manner from that which prevails under other forms of 
government — nothing more. It should not be forgotten that 
through no possible contrivance can men be governed, unless 
there is some one to govern them : and the more government 
there is. the more men must be governed in some way. A man 
may have some preference as to who shall rule him. but he is a 
slave just the same, no matter how his master happens to be 
chosen. And yet. in face of all these facts, people still imagine 
that under a republican form of government they necessarily 
get more liberty than they would under any other form. Such 
is the influence exerted upon the minds of men by a name or an 
idea. 

When a state begins to encroach upon the liberties of in- 
dividuals, there is no limit to its invasions and no point where it 
can be depended on to stop. Among other prerogatives that the 
state claims as its own. the leading one is. to make men clo 
right. But such a thing cannot properly come within its 
province. The state has no special gift by which it is better 



FREEDOM FOR FREEMEN. 93 

able than others to decide what is right. People are generally 
quite as able to determine what they ought to do as the state is. 
There ought to be something above government and anterior 
to it to induce men to do right and avoid wrong. Conscience, 
custom, religion, education and public opinion ought to have 
more influence in this direction than all the powers of govern- 
ment combined. It is absurd to establish censors over the 
people with a view of compelling them to do certain things and 
leave others undone. Censors are but ordinary men. and usually 
they are very ordinary men at that. 

But why should the state not be omnipotent, seeing that the 
individual has put himseK wholly in its power ? For all practi- 
cal purposes, that is what he has done, and he has reserved to 
himself absolutely nothing. The state takes charge of his educa- 
tion, his health, his business, his property, his family and his 
pocket-book. There is not a thing to which he pretends to have 
title that does not really come from the state. Even his life is 
not his own. and it can be taken away whenever the state 
pleases. The state makes all the laws, and the power that con- 
trols the laws of a people control? everything. The people them- 
selves, with all their boasted liberties, cannot make a single 
law : even a thousand or a million men could not make a law. 
because they have not the requisite authority, and hence their 
action would not be legal. That always settles the matter — 
what is not legal, no matter what else it is. amounts to nothing, 
absolutely and unqualifiedly nothing. That is a fact that people 
should never lose sight of. 

The state is omnipotent — but the people, the people, are 
helpless ! Let them try to resist or attempt to rebel, and they 
will see for themselves how utterly powerless are a thousand or 
a million of men, provided they are not on the side of the con- 
stituted authorities. Let them try it. and at once they will see 
that every gun. every fort, every ship, every soldier, every 
marine, every policeman, every judge, every lawyer, every 
court officer, and indeed the whole country at large is against 



94 FREEDOM FOR FREEMEN. 

them. That is the reason that rebellion comes only at very 
long intervals ; people that try it once are slow to try it again. 
Men usually think it is better to serve the devil and let him have 
his own way, than it is to take up arms against the government 
and suffer the consequences. 

The state has freedom to do as it pleases — but the citizen 
has nothing that he can depend upon with certainty, except a 
condition of perpetual bondage. The state takes charge of all 
sales, contracts and business transactions generally ; the state 
controls all the courts and manages the finances of the country ; 
the church in most countries is allied with the state, and in all 
countries it is compelled to turn to the state for protection and 
assistance. The state controls all marriages, and establishes laws 
of inheritance. If a man marries a woman, she is not his wife 
unless the state ratifies the proceeding — just as in slave times the 
wife belonged not to her husband but to the master. A marriage 
that is not legal is no marriage at all. A man may be married 
for years and wake up some morning and find that the courts 
have annulled his marriage and made him a single man. A 
man may be the father of a dozen children and still they are not 
his children, in the legal sense of the term, unless he was mar- 
ried to the mother according to the due form of law, So a man 
may make a promise of any kind, and still it is not a real 
promise, it is not legal, it is not binding, unless it has the sanc- 
tion of the law. A man can hardly draw the breath of life, 
unless he has the permission or sanction of the government 
under which he lives ! This is the kind of freedom that citizens 
possess in all the civilized lands of the earth to-day. 

How shall we consistently talk of freedom in this age of the 
world, when we dare not even make known what we think, and 
when even the community in which we live endeavors, to a 
large extent, to control not only our action but our belief? 
What should be freer than a man's thoughts ? And if men 
should be permitted to think, why should they not also be per- 
mitted to express their thoughts without restraint or reserve? 



FREEDOM FOR FREEMEN. 



95 



Why should we be afraid of the truth in so many cases and try 
to suppress or conceal it in every possible way? It would seem 
that the truth would be what people would want at all times, 
and hence they would unite in promoting its discovery, but it is 
well known that, as a general thing, they do nothing of the 
kind. If all were encouraged to speak freely and act freely, we 
should have no dishonest or criminal conduct and people would 
seem to be what they really are. As it is now, people are in the 
habit of disguising their thoughts, feelings and purposes in every 
way possible. They know very well that if they say what they 
actually think, they run the risk of offending some patron of 
theirs, or perhaps they might lose their standing in society. 
Under such a state of things as now exists, people have every 
inducement to be dishonest and to deal with their neighbors in 
any but a candid way. How shall we ever know what people 
think, if they are not permitted to say just what they think ? 
Is it any worse for people to speak badly of us than it is for them 
to think badly ? People can do us little or no harm by speaking 
ill of us, when we have done no wrong and are deserving of no 
censure. 

When freedom is found to be so simple a thing, and so easily 
obtained, why should any one be denied its possession for one 
moment? Greatest of all blessings, as it is, there is no true en- 
joyment without freedom. And yet how very few have ever 
been permitted to know what freedom really is, or what it 
would be, if men were less selfish than they are, and if nature 
were allowed to follow its ordinary and unimpeded course ! 
The sources of freedom are inexhaustible, and yet it is a boon 
that is denied to all of us. Even our masters have their masters, 
and so on ad infinitum. Every man has his yoke ; every man is 
branded somehow or somewhere — he is somebody's man. The vas- 
sal was under the baron, the baron was under the king, the king 
was under the pope, the pope was under the Almighty — and we 
might add that even the Almighty has never yet been permitted 
to do as he pleases. The Bible proves that fact clearly enough. 



96 OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 

The question that arises, finally, in this connexion, is this : 
Why must men continue to toil and suffer, merely to please or 
gratify a few other people ? We are compelled to help ourselves 
in the first place, and then we are called upon to help somebody 
besides. Why not have this order of things reversed, and in- 
stead of saying "let us help everybody." have it read the other 
way, so that everybody shall help us ? That certainly would be 
nicer for us. if not for other people. 

OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 

From the cradle onward and upward, and even downward 
to the grave, the first and almost the only important thing that 
is impressed upon our minds, is the duty of implicit obedience. 
Children, obey your parents, wives, obey your husbands, slaves, 
obey your masters, and in return, let parents, husbands, masters 
and everybody else, obey the law ! These are the commands 
that are given us. We are also instructed to obey God, though 
we know not who God is, where he resides, or even what he 
desires. It is a remarkable thing that such poor, helpless crea- 
tures as we are should ever have been put into this world at all. 
We have been given strength of body and strength of mind, but 
we are strictly forbidden to make any use of our faculties, in 
any manner, on our own account. Everywhere around us we 
see signs put up which remind us to "keep off the grass" or 
"beware of the dog, " and we continually hear sounding in 
our ears such words as these: "this is mine," ''don't touch 
this,"' "don't make any noise," "obey the law." When we 
come to look seriously at our humble, helpless condition, we are 
led to inquire, in the words of a certain congressman at Wash- 
ington, "where are we at?" or as another fellow stated the 
question : " What are we here for ? " 

Can it be that our sole mission and our chief occupation on 
earth is merely to obey the will of somebody else ? But if such 
a rule is good for one, it must be equally good for all. and then 

6 



OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 97 

we should have a state of things where nobody followed his own 
will, but simplv the will of another. Certainly that is the direc- 
tion taken by all our teaching to-day. Everywhere we are 
taught to be a good slave — at home, in the church, in school, in 
society. Everybody must behave himself, and instead of doing 
as he himself thinks proper, he must do as some other per- 
son tells him he must. However, it is not at all strange that 
we have such instruction as that furnished by the state and the 
church, for without obedience and imliesitating submission, 
neither the state nor the church could exist for a moment. In 
this fact. I apprehend, lies the explanation of the tone of all 
our teaching. Power always seeks to perpetuate itself, anil it 
can do so in no manner so successfully as through the obedience 
and the stupidity of the masses. If those who stand at the head 
of affairs can make the masses believe that the state is godlike 
in its nature, and that they could not continue to exist without 
its aid and protection, they will have gained complete mastery 
over these people and they can easily make them, what they 
uniformly are. their most willing and devoted servants. 

We are continually told to obey the law ! Obey the law ! 
Obey not any and every law. merely because it is a law. but 
simply obey our law ! We insist that men shall obey the laws, 
not because they are good and ought to be obeyed., but because 
they are our laws and ice want them obeyed. How monstrous 
it is that we torture a man. imprison him. shut him up in a dun- 
geon, load him with chains, make him suffer and weep, make 
him writhe and twist — for what ? Simply because he refuses 
or omits to do what we order him to do. In doing these bar- 
barous things,, we are worse than the Holy Inquisitors, who 
really believed they were doing the will of God. The only 
single point of difference between those who tortured heretics 
in the Middle Ages and those who torture criminals at the end 
of the nineteenth century, is that the former served God and 
the latter serve only their masters. It will be noticed that they 
had not a single appliance or process which they used rive hun- 



9 S OBEDIENCE AXD COMPULSIOIff. 

dred years ago that is not used to-day by our officers of the law. 
We have our dungeons, fetters and chains, maohir.es for tomxre. 
and those who have cri min als in charge wring confessions from 
the prisoner by strategy, deception, or torture, precisely as was 
done in the worst times of the Inquisition. 

Suppose a man does not obey our law. That makes him an 
outlaw, and he has not the rights of a human being after that. 
He is entitled to no recognition from civilized man. We can do 
anything with him that we choose. Men in this country, as well 
as in England and France, worship idols and the Bible, just 
as men did in former times. A man who does not reverence the 
law is for them the same kind of a man as were those among the 
ancients who did not reverence the gods. It will be remembered 
that we make and enforce moral law precisely as we make and 
enforce statute law. We do not simply insist upon our not 
being injured by others, but we want to lay down rules by 
which others shall govern their action, precisely as if they were 
children under age and we were their guardians. 



emphatically the book of submission, humiliation and suffering. 
Who shall 'dare to hold up his head in the presence of the wrath- 
ful . vengeful God, his master? Men sacrifice and suffer, and 
thus endeavor to save themselves for eternity. Mot only do they 
suffer, but they make others suffer. But as men are now ignor- 
ing the Bible and its teachings, they come to be gradually more 
humane, more manlik e. We do nor punish aui torment now as 
we did fifty years ago. and fifty years hence we will punish and 
torment still less. Men are coming to love their fellow man, 
rather than hate him. They not only love their fellow man. but 
all creatures and all nature besides. 



OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 



99 



However, though we are slowly improving, it must not be 
forgotten that in the worst days of Rome and Spain, in the days 
of the Inquisition, or even under Mohammed's rule, men never 
delighted more in the sufferings of others than they do to-day. 
It must not be forgotten that a man may be a savage and still 
have kind feelings. Savages love their relatives and friends 
quite as devotedly as men do now, and so did the ancients. And 
to-day, no matter how much of a Christian a man may be, nor 
how much he may adore his wife, his children, his fellows, his 
countrymen, or even his pet cat and dog, he nevertheless hates 
a criminal, a man who fails to obey the law, as fiercely as the 
savage hates his foes. Even Robespierre, the monster, had his 
redeeming qualities ; he had his pets that he loved like other 
men. 

The criminal has the same relations to us that the stranger 
had to the ancients. He is our enemy, he has no rights, and as 
such it is lawful to kill him as we would a wild beast. That is 
the feeling we have to-day towards a robber, a burglar, a mur- 
derer or a horse-thief. How we relish an account of a burglar's 
being shot and killed while crawling out of the window of a 
house he had unlawfully entered ! How we delight to hear that 
an escaped prisoner, even though innocent, has been caught ! 
And then, too, how we hate the man that is accused of treason, 
the counterfeiter, the perjurer, the bigamist, the common thief ! 
How we do love to see them put into prison, and know that they 
will suffer torments for years ! How many thousands of men 
would gather in from the country round about to see a man 
executed ! How many scores would leave their business and 
strain every nerve to aid in catching a fugitive from justice ! 
Indeed, are we in the least better than the Spaniards who de- 
light in bullfights, or the ancient Romans who went into 
ecstasies over the slaughters of the arena ? Every man has 
two, if not more, different natures which come to the surface 
according to circumstances. Because a man is good to-day, it 
does not follow that he will be good to-morrow. A man may be 



100 OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 

very courteous to his customers, and yet very morose and dis- 
agreeable to his family. In fact, no man is good at all times. 
We all have our streaks, and weighed in a just and fair balance, 
when all the facts and circumstances are taken into consider- 
ation, one man or one woman is just as good as another man or 
another woman. Before God all are alike — whether a man is 
sane or insane, whether he is civilized or sava.ee. whether he is 
a criminal or a Christian, in the presence of God it makes no 
difference. All men are God's children. 

But what is the dreadful thing of which the offender is 
guilty? His sin is simply one of disobedience. He does not 
obey the law. It is not virtue, or morality or goodness that 
concerns or troubles our rulers, it is merely the question of 
obedience. Let the subject keep within the law. whether writ- 
ten or unwritten, and that is sufficient. 

But people have a very mistaken idea as to what compulsion 
is and what it can accomplish. The universal opinion is that 
compulsion, if there is power enough behind it. can do anything 
and everything, while the truth proves to be that compulsion 
of itself can do nothing. How do we compel a man to do any- 
thing? Only by practically doing the work ourselves. We can 
perhaps move inert or dead matter, as a log for instance, but in 
that as in all other cases, the effort is wholly ours. The log of" 
itself does nothing — it would not and could not of itself move 
even a hair's breadth. 

How would we go to work to compel a man to do anything, 
to walk, for instance ? We could not. had we all the power of 
the czar of Eussia or of king Solomon of old. compel him to 
move one step. The will of men is something that cannot, will 
not, be controlled. Whether a man will walk or not. is wholly 
a question for himself to settle. Were he the poorest, humblest 
beggar in the world, he would not walk unless he chose to do so. 
Could we compel a man to talk? No, that has been very often 
tried and failed. But can we not compel a man to do anything ? 
Can't the law, the government, the army, the police compel a 



OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 101 

man to do this thing or that ? No. the government, the army, 
the police are all alike helpless, when they come to the question 
of compelling an obstinate man to do anything that he has de- 
cided not to do. But are not the state, the king, the army 
powerful? Certainly they are. and still there is very little that 
the state or the army can do. It can do this, and this only, in 
controlling men's actions : it can cause pain and make trouble, 
it can punish, and that is just as far as its power extends over 
men. When the state talks about passing compulsory education 
laws, or any other laws, the design of which is to compel people 
to do things, it is talking nonsense. Thousands of laws are 
enacted that never amount to anything. If the people do not 
will, do not ratify the proposed law. it is a nullity. We see 
plenty of illustrations to that effect every year. The legislature 
is powerless, even the people themselves are powerless, against a 
man who fears nothing, not even death. We can imprison a 
man. we can hang him. but that is a very different thing from 
compelling him to do what we wish. In all such cases of 
assumed compulsion, we do the work ourselves and the fear- 
less man does nothing, absolutely nothing. Suppose a heretic 
does not choose to recant, who can make him do so '? His 
enemies can burn him. but that does not make him recant. 

What, then, is the power of a conqueror or king, and whence 
is it derived ? What a king or conqueror does is accomplished 
by the people. Without the help of those who of their own will 
follow the conqueror, he could do nothing. The people are not 
compelled by the conqueror, they simply consent and submit, 
if they do not actually agree to his action. Neither Alexander 
nor Napoleon was personally more powerful than ordinary men. 
But they both had the skill and the ability to make available for 
themselves the power of other people. 

The greatest tyrant the world has ever seen held his place 
simply by the tacit consent, or the cowardice and stupidity of 
the masses. A minority frequently rules a majority, because 
the latter does not choose to act, or because it overestimates the 



102 OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 

power of the minority. There is no compulsion about the busi- 
ness. It is not numbers or strength that counts so much as 
tact and skill. Every king, every tyrant is merely an agent or 
representative, and it is not possible for him to change that re- 
lation. A single individual can do little of himself — he does 
great things only because he is permitted to do them and is 
aided in his efforts by others. In practice any one man can 
usually do of himself about as much as any other man and no 
more. It will be noticed that kings and conquerors understand 
their feebleness as well as other people. They know quite well 
that without followers they are lost. A king is always careful 
to have it understood that he is working through a power that 
comes from some higher source than himself — from heaven, 
perhaps, or from the people. Kings must always be crowned, 
ordained ; they never attempt any great undertaking without 
having the people, apparently at least, ratify their action in 
some way. Before a king is really a king, there must be a cere- 
mony of some kind, just as there must be a formality in making 
laws. 

When the people get really tired of a tyrant, he goes down 
directly, just like any other puppet or scarecrow. When the 
people take it into their heads to rebel, there is always a, 
smash-up of some kind. The greatest conqueror in the world is 
powerless to prevent a rebellion. Tyrants are peculiarly subject 
to such mishaps. Many a one has lost his head by going too far 
and worrying the people too much. No, really, the conqueror 
is not a big man after all — only just so far as the people consent 
to his playing such a part. When his followers leave him, the 
lion's skin drops off, and he appears, as he actually is, a very 
little man. A man's strength, as a rule, depends upon his ability 
to organize and keep certain elements together — the barons, the 
commons, the bourgeois, or the army, for example. So it is in 
politics. What an insignificant little fellow a boss is, when the 
people decide to let him down so that he appears for just what 
he is ! There were Tweed, Conklin and Blaine, of recent date, 



OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 



103 



and Aaron Burr and Martin VanBuren in earlier days. I re- 
peat, a man's strength lies wholly in his following, and is entirely 
outside of himself. Is it not evident enough that the people are 
not compelled to do as we see them do ? 

When people submit, it is only because they choose to sub- 
mit. Even a slave might never cease resisting, if he really 
chose to do so. All the power that men have, save a little 
strength of body, is what is given them by others. No man can 
make another man move. Men move only from inward im- 
pulses. The state cannot compel a man to pay his tax. It can 
take some of his property, or cut off his ears or shut him up in 
prison, but that is a different thing from compelling him to pay 
his tax. No man can plead compulsion as an excuse for com- 
mitting any crime, for the simple reason that he cannot be 
compelled. He may be afraid of some bodily harm, but that is 
no excuse at all for wrong doing. No man can justify himself 
for doing wrong, on the ground merely that he has derived some 
benefit therefrom or avoided some injury thereby. 

The conclusion that we arrive at is that there is much less 
compulsion in this world than is commonly supposed. Indeed, 
we are led to doubt that there is really any such thing. When 
the conqueror rules or leads his people, the power he exercises 
over them is not physical. The people follow him because they 
are magnetized in some way ; it is a matter of enthusiasm with 
them, or perhaps of timidity or stupor. A king can have his 
enemy's head chopped off, but only provided his followers con- 
sent to do it. He must always consult his followers, and secure 
their expressed or implied approval. But the most ordinary 
man in civil life can have the same thing done, if he proceeds 
properly. He can have his enemy hanged according to law, 
if he can succeed in having him accused of crime and afterward 
proved guilty. There is absolutely nothing that a conqueror can 
do or that the state can do, that a common man could not also 
do, if he were in the same position and had the requisite sup- 
port. Great men are usually men of great opportunities, rather 



104 OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 

than of extraordinary gifts. They usually have some striking 
talents, but they never have any that are not possessed by 
thousands of other men. Without the Directory, Napoleon 
would have lived and died a common soldier : without the war 
of the Rebellion in this country, Grant would never have been 
anything more than a tanner or a farmer in the West. 

It is not alone the state that is powerless to enforce its com- 
mands, even God. the Almighty, is as helpless in this respect 
as the state. If God had any real power, and if he knew he 
possessed it, he would simply command, and there would be no 
question about his being obeyed. Most certainly, if God really 
was the Almighty, he would simply make his wishes known, 
and that would be the end of the business. However. God is 
fully aware of his weakness, and so when he commands, he 
knows very well that it is a matter of the greatest uncertainty 
whether he will be obeyed or not. Hence his commands all 
take the alternative form : men can obey or not obey, as they 
choose, but if they do not obey, they must suffer the con- 
sequences. Even God. though he can make laws, cannot com- 
pel the humblest creature of earth to obey him. and that is the 
reason why he falls back upon a system of rewards and punish- 
ments, as he uniformly does. 

In view of all these facts, how absurd it is to talk about the 
power of God, the power of man, the power of the state, the 
power of the law or the court, in any literal sense ! Every crea- 
ture in this world does as it pleases, and if it does not please, it 
does not do at all. It should be noted that God governs wholly 
by promises and threats, the very worst method of govern- 
ment that has yet been tried — and man, naturally enough, fol- 
lows the example set by his illustrious Master. 

The time must come when men will have new ideas of 
power, and when the word %vill have an entirely new interpre- 
tation. There is in all nature no such thing as power, if we 
mean by the term any control exercised by one thing over 
another. Matter is certainly dead and powerless, and if there is 



OBEDIENCE AND COMPULSION. 105 

power anywhere, it must be in the spirit. But we have yet to learn 
what the spirit is, or whether there really is such a thing as spirit. 

God is our master only so long as we recognize him as such. 
A man is our boss only so long as we decide to recognize him as 
boss — it is a matter that lies wholly within ourselves to say 
whether we will follow this boss, that boss, or no boss at all. 
This is unquestionably so in politics, and it is so in all other 
cases. A sovereign implies a subject, and where there is no 
subject, there can be no sovereign. People make a great mis- 
take when they assume that they are obliged to recognize any 
man as a sovereign or any being as God. No man is actually 
obliged to do anything. Obedience is strictly a matter of the 
will ; no man is obedient, unless he obeys willingly. What a man 
is forced or compelled to do, could not come under the head of 
obedience. Every man does what he prefers to do ; some- 
times a man knowingly prefers one evil to another evil. A man 
often prefers to obey rather than suffer pain or punishment, 
but in that case what he does is of his own free will, and there 
is no compulsion connected with the business. In fact, the only 
reason why men submit is simply because they are afraid ; if 
men had no fears, there would be no masters, no gods. 

It might be added that it is not in the matter of govern- 
ment alone that men always make things as they are for 
them. With us, everything depends upon the conceptions we 
form and the belief we have. If we believe in a God who is a 
ruler, then there is such a God, for us. If we believe in ghosts 
and witches, we will certainly find them, but a man who does 
not believe in such things never sees them. It would be im- 
possible for us to believe in what did not exist, for ourselves. 
All there is in life for us, is what we believe. Luther believed in 
devils, and he encountered them everywhere. For him devils 
were as much a reality as the moon and stars. If people believe 
in a hereafter, there is a hereafter, for them. There must be a 
solid, substantial foundation for everything that any man be- 
lieves. All there is of truth, for us, is what we believe. 



106 



EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. 



EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. 

It is often contended that men are born free and equal. 
But it needs no argument to prove that no man was ever born 
free. He is hampered by a thousand conditions, in various 
ways, and he is not really free to move either hand or foot. 
Sometimes he can do what he wills, and sometimes he cannot. 
What he does, depends entirely on circumstances and condi- 
tions outside of his control. In all cases he must wait till the 
conditions are favorable. Conditions are his master. Neither 
are men, any two men, born equal. It would seem to require 
no great amount of reflexion or evidence to be convinced of 
that fact. If all men were born of the same parents, in one 
family, and always lived in one town, there might be some ap- 
proach to equality. But even then there would be great dif- 
ferences, as there always is, between members of the same fam- 
ily. One child is stronger than another and more healthful ; 
one is more apt than another, or more diligent or more ambi- 
tious ; one child is more amiable, another is more willful or 
more intractable than another ; one is easily managed and 
yields readily to impressions, while another is stubborn and 
requires an entirely different method of treatment. The dif- 
ference among children becomes more emphasized and more 
strongly defined as the children grow older and finally become 
men and women. 

No government can ever succeed which is founded upon the 
theory that men, being equal, must all have the same place in 
life, must perform the same kind of labor in all cases, and must 
occupy the same positions in society. Such a thing is, of course, 
absolutely impossible. It never has been done and never can 
be. No two trees or two plants were ever made alike, and God 
evidently never intended that they should occupy exactly the 
same piece of earth, or that one should grow up in the place of 
the other. On the contrary, on whichever side we look, in 
this world, we see variety and dissimilarity. 



EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. 107 

But while no two persons are alike and no two can be ex- 
pected to occupy the same place, or perform the same identical 
service in life, it does not follow that one is better than another 
or is entitled to any milder or more favorable treatment in any 
respect. An elephant is stronger than an eagle, but that is 
nothing for the elephant to boast of when it compares itself 
with the eagle. Xo one can rightfully boast of any gift that 
has come to him from nature. The idea of privileges and honors 
should never be encouraged in society. Each one should fill 
his place and perforin his duty to the best of his ability, and 
the noblest and 'worthiest of the group could not possibly do 
better. This being true, how could we justly lienor one and not 
honor the other ? If one man can lift five hundred pounds and 
others but one hundred, that fact is neither to be placed to the 
credit of one nor to the discredit of others. Xo man can do 
what he cannot do. nor more than he is able to do. It is not 
even just to compare one man with another in any respect. 
They are two separate and distinct beings, and there is no 
chance to compare one with the other. AVho would think of 
comparing a horse with a bridge, or a house with a raven, or a 
child with a man ? Again. I repeat, there is no chance for any 
just comparison in any of these cases. So it is in all the affairs 
of life. How shall we fairly say that one man deserves more 
honor or greater privileges than another? It would be impos- 
sible that he could deserve anything of the kind. 

So I would in no case put one man above another, or make 
one man the servant of another. In all cases there should be 
equal rights and equal opportunities for all, so far, of course, as 
the circumstances of the case would allow. Absolute equality 
in the way of opportunities and privileges is something that can 
never be attained, but it should always be approximated. If in 
the nature of the case, there must be division of labor and a 
difference of employment to a greater or less extent, it does not 
by any means follow that there should also be difference in 
caste or rank. Xo trade or business can properly be considered 



108 EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. 

to be above or better than another. Rank is no more a neces- 
sary thing in society than it is in a public school, or in any 
other organized body of individuals. A man may be chosen 
as a guide or leader because of certain qualities or gifts that he 
possesses, but that should bring him no honor and give him no 
authority over his fellow men. The chief of a barbarous tribe 
is a leader, but he is never a master. The members of the tribe 
obey his directions or not. as they see fit. The idea that a 
leader must necessarily be a master, is one of comparatively 
recent date. The idea that because a man is strong, or has 
powerful followers, he shall be a despot, is something that can- 
not be charged to the account of barbarous people. Savages do 
not even punish their children, as men do in the civilized state. 
Slavery is a development, or an invention rather, of civilization. 
The old Germans had no slaves — even their wives were free. 
All the men were free men. and as such they had their voice in 
council. They went into council armed — it was the government 
that had no arms. They followed their leaders in war. but the 
commands they obeyed came from the priests, anl they imag- 
ined that these commands were messages direct from God. In 
peace they had no governors. We speak of the Germans as they 
were known before being overcome by Caesar. After then- con- 
quest by the Romans. 1.900 years ago or more, the Germans and 
their customs changed very rapidly. The work of civilization 
had begun, The Germans before Caesar and the Germans whom 
Tacitus describes, were quite different people. A few decades 
had sufficed to produce wonderful change- for that race. Cities 
had begun to appear, landed property had been established and 
wealth had come to prevail. That poverty and slavery should 
follow such developments, is what might have been naturally 
expected. It will be remembered that these old Germans were 
our ancestors. 

As civilization advances, men lose their liberties — though 
their masters often deceive them with the pretence that their 
liberties are retained. I know very veil that the term slavery 



EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. 109 

is not usually applied in connexion with bondage as it exists 
under the state. But I am not able to find the slightest dif- 
ference between that and any other form of slavery. A slave is 
simply a man who is in the power of another, and any man who 
is wholly in the power of another must be a slave. Is this not 
the case with every man who is held in subjection under the 
law and Officers of a state ? A slave is a man who owns noth- 
ing, as between himself and his master, and when he perforins 
any service, he gets no pay for his work. He may be allowed to 
retain enough of what he produces to keep himself from starving, 
but that is all. Are not these the exact relations which exist 
between the subject and the authorities of a modern state ? 
The state can take his house, his land and even his life. Every 
title to property that he possesses is held under the state. The 
state calls upon the subject to perform some ordinary or some 
extraordinary service, without giving any compensation, just as 
the feudal barons made demands for services upon their vassals, 
because those services were due to them. When the subject 
gathers his crops, he must always give a portion to the state, 
under the familiar name of " taxes. " The old name was 
"tithes." If the subject has nothing left, and his family 
starves, the state has no concern about such a small matter. 
The tribute must come. The masters of these slaves, namely, 
the officers of the state, are generally careful to leave the sub- 
ject something with which to sustain life and continue another 
year, because if they did not do that, they would be obliged to 
look for their tribute in the future to some other source. Those 
oppressive burdens called "taxes," are, like slavery, to be 
classed with the other peculiar features that characterize civil- 
ization. 

Must an officer of the state necessarily be our master ? Is 
an employer necessarily a master, a ruler over those whom he 
employs? Formerly he was, but he should not be so now. 
Officers ought to be agents, they ought to be mere instruments 
through which certain work is done, but in no case should they 



110 EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. 

have any controlling power over others. They should do their 
duty, and if those in other relations did not do theirs, it would 
be no cause of reproach for them. The officer is not responsible 
for what the people refuse to do. In no case should there be coer- 
cion. 

John Stuart Mill says : ' ' Obedience is the first lesson of 
civilization. " This is true, but true only because slavery is one 
of the earliest developments of civilization. Obedience always 
implies slavery ; before we can have obedience, we must have 
a command, and no man gives a command, at least with author- 
ity, but the master. So, no one obeys any one but his master ; 
to his equals a man yields because he wills, but to his master 
he yields because he must. Of course when a man obeys the 
will of some one else, he does not obey his own will. That must 
be evident enough. 

Every man in civilized life is a slave, and because he is a 
slave, he is, in his intercourse with his fellow man, to a greater 
or less extent, a hypocrite and a coward. Indeed, a slave can 
never be anything less than a coward and a hypocrite. As a 
matter of fact, it is so common, and it is looked upon as a thing 
so usual and proper to fawn, flatter and deceive others, in our 
daily intercourse with men, that we do not realize for a moment 
that our conduct is in any way improper or reprehensible. 
Lying, lying everywhere and at all times, in the church, in 
politics, in diplomacy, in social life, has become so common and 
so popular a pastime, that it is looked upon as an excusable 
weakness, or at least as a pardonable sin. Why, state lying 
in all transactions, and especially in dealing with foreign 
nations, either in times of peace or war, is always regarded 
as justifiable, when any advantage is to be gained by dis- 
honest and tricky practices. It is well known that in the 
early history of Christianity, the saints taught that the end jus- 
tified the means, and therefore lying was exceedingly common 
in those days. It must be observed that there is something be- 
yond law and custom that enslaves people. The slavery that 



EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. Ill 

comes from the homage paid by the client to his patron, in all 
the departments of business life, is quite a noticeable phenom- 
enon. There is no tyrant so exacting, so unrelenting, as the 
patron or employer, and there is no slave so cringing, so appre- 
hensive and submissive as the ordinary client or employee. 
Men who without the restraint of patronage would be as straight 
as a tamarack, become very weak in the vertebral column, 
and they bend over and grow quite out of shape, from a habit 
they have contracted of crouching and cringing to every patron 
or employer who makes a demand on them. 

There is really no free thought, or at least no speech really 
free, in any civilized land at present. Men have to be very cir- 
cumspect in all they do, and they are naturally very careful 
what they say and to whom they say it. As matters are now 
arranged, and as things are now constituted, it is not a prudent 
thing for people to speak the truth at all times, and not a safe 
thing to speak the whole truth at any time. It is far better for 
men to dissemble — a fact that is so well known that most people 
do dissemble more or less. When people have to depend upon 
others for the money that gives them their subsistence, they 
are not so apt to be telling everybody all they know or all 
they think. The most prudent thing for a slave to do, is to 
consult his master before he makes any special remarks, and 
that is the way that people usually do who live in a country 
where every step is cadenced according to law or custom. It 
often happens that, for some reason or other, the master pre- 
fers to have the slave keep his mouth closed and his tongue 
quiet. 

It is evident enough that no man can be part slave — a man 
either is a slave or he is not a slave. If he is a slave at all, he 
is a complete slave, and so every man in civilized life is a com- 
plete slave. He does a few things of his own free will — but only 
because he is permitted, only because it is lawful. Slavery ex- 
tends its ramifications into all the departments of social life, 
and its influence trammels every man and, to a large extent, it 



112 EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. 

controls his action. Does not every sensible man, before 
making any move or taking any step in life, first of all inquire : 
" Is it lawful, is it permitted?" 

In considering the working and effects of power still fur- 
ther, it should be noticed that law binds and holds down ; law 
rather prevents than encourages development. All advance- 
ment made in science or art is made in opposition to law and 
precedent. Law never provides for things new or unknown. 
Law is conservative, but intellect is radical ; law holds fast 
to that which it has, but intellect is constantly looking for some 
new and undiscovered land. 

It has been said before, and the fact ought never to be over- 
looked, that law, which is another name for force, never makes 
men good or virtuous, or even wise. Neither laws, nor mas- 
ters, nor chains have a tendency to make men either virtuous or 
noble, but rather the reverse — that much seems to be established 
beyond question. We must obtain goodness and excellence from 
some other source. Force can neither develop nor sustain vir- 
tue ; force is the weapon of tyrants, and in society it is used 
mainly for the purposes of tyrants. 

In its present stage of development, law has nothing to do 
with virtue or goodness, and it will be remembered that this 
is strikingly the case with religious law as laid down in the Old 
Testament. In Old Testament times, doing a man's duty con- 
sisted solely in worshiping God and obeying the law — and 
doing a man's duty is not materially different from that at the 
present time. Obeying the law is a man's whole duty to-day. 
A man who obeys the law can be as wicked and immoral as he 
likes ; when he has done that, nothing more can be required of 
him. After he obeys the law, he can do as he pleases. 

Is it not plain that we cannot speak of the virtue or good- 
ness of a slave, of a man who is in chains, who is in the power 
of another and who can only do as he is permitted to do ? And 
is this not the condition of all men who are under the law, 
whether it is moral, religious or otherwise ? A man is good only 

7 



EQUALITY AND SLAVERY. 113 

when he wills to be good, chooses to be good, desires to be good. 
We never call a man good who could not possibly be otherwise. 
A man is honest who acts honestly from his own convictions and 
inward impulses, and not from the force of circumstances, nor 
from the power of law nor from actual compulsion. No, we 
must first remove the fetters from a man before we can decide 
upon his character and call his qualities either excellent or the 
opposite. We must annul the law, we must have free men as 
the condition precedent before we can have a manly and pro- 
gressive people. But as it is now, there is no free development 
or free action for man in any case. Really, free thought and 
free speech are things not known. 

The condition of slavery may be considered to be the source 
of man's wickedness and of his general wrong doing. If we had 
no law, we would have no crime. If there was no restraint and 
men had no fears, they would have no motive for doing wrong. 
They would tell the truth at all times for the simple reason that 
they would have no reason for doing otherwise ; they would do 
in every instance what they felt to be right, because they would 
see no object in doing anything different. I do not believe in 
the innate wickedness of mankind. Wickedness is something 
taught and learned. A man does bad deeds simply to accom- 
modate himself to circumstances. With him such conduct is 
practically a necessity. Men do not lie to nature, they do not 
wrong nature. All of man's dealings with nature are strictly on 
the square. Nature never pretends to exercise the slightest con- 
trol over man. Nature presents to him the conditions of the 
case and he meets them or he does not. If he does not, he uni- 
formly fails. 

And yet with all that has been said about slavery, it is a 
curious fact that we must have slavery in order to have free- 
dom ; if all were free, it would be the same as if none were 
free, or rather as if there were no such thing as freedom. Free- 
dom rises and supports itself upon the foundation of slavery 
— from the slavery of some, the freedom of others comes. That 



114 OUR RIGHTFUL MASTER. 

has at least been the history of the world thus far. So it is also 
with enlightenment and advancement — these things are always 
for the few. There never was a case where the whole people 
were enlightened ; it is the splendor of a few shining lights in 
a nation that is reflected by the whole body. And especially is 
this the case with wealth, the wealth of a people always 
implying the wealth of a few, while the great mass suffer 
from poverty and destitution. 

OUR RIGHTFUL MASTER. 

If it is really a fact that we cannot be trusted in this world 
without being governed by some men — in other words, without 
having a chaperon — it is well to inquire, who is the rightful 
master ? Who is the one that is wiser than we are, and who is it 
that knows what we want and ought to have better than we do 
ourselves ? According to the prevailing theory, we are merely 
subject to the will of others, and hence at every step we are 
compelled to ask, " What shall we do, and what must we leave 
undone?" 

Where shall we turn to find the rules, orders and directions 
that shall guide us, and at last lead us safely to the promised 
land ? Shall it be our Bible ? But why not the Vedas as well, 
or perhaps Confucius, Zoroaster, or even Joe Smith ? At least, 
why not the Koran, a book that is accepted and trusted by more 
people than our Bible is to-day? All these various books and 
authors differ materially from each other, and we have no doubt 
that one has just as much claim to being called standard and 
reliable as any of the rest have. Of one thing we feel certain, 
these works are all human productions, and the men who wrote 
or edited them were just such frail mortals as those are who 
write books at the present day. 

Since these sacred books and authors thus differ radically 
from each other and one stands as high as the other ; since each 
one is adopted by one country and one set of men and rejected as 



OUR RIGHTFUL MASTER. 



115 



worthless by the people of all other countries, we are left to 
exercise our own judgment and to select and follow the precepts 
that suit ourselves best. 

Again, how could we follow the Bible of our country as a 
guide of life ? It is not adapted to the times and is not in har- 
mony with the spirit of the people among whom we are called 
upon to live. It was meant for other men, in other days — for 
men with a different philosophy, with different surroundings, 
different aims and purposes and different capabilities from those 
of the men in this country at the present day. Most of the laws 
laid down in our Bible are now practically obsolete, and no one 
pretends to regard them as anything more than curious relics of 
the past. They were rules and ordinances laid down for 
another people in another age of the world, and every one 
knows that no Supreme Euler ever made such regulations as 
those to govern all men in all ages of the world. 

But since we could not safely or consistently follow the 
Bible as our guide and director, is there not some book of morals 
that we would dare to trust, with the assurance that by follow- 
ing its teachings we should always be kept in the straight and 
narrow way ? There may be some such work, but unfortunately 
I have never been able to find it, and I very much doubt if such 
a book exists. All books of that character contain merely the 
views and theories of men, and while one points out one path 
as the one that should be followed by all, the others have each 
a different route which they are certain is better. But the 
views of these men cannot all be sound, for when theories differ, 
it is absolutely certain that some of them must be wrong. 

Hence we are left with nothing to guide and direct us in 
life but our reason and common sense. Indeed, it is the only 
guide I have ever had ; I would not recommend it, or insist 
upon any one's following the same guide, but I must say it has 
answered my purpose thus far exceedingly well. Thought, re- 
flexion, judgment have always served myself admirably. Even 
in selecting my companions and my authorities, I have never 



116 OUR RIGHTFUL MASTER. 

had anything but my reason to guide me. I find we must think , 
reflect, consider, compare, observe and inquire. In this way, 
while we may not gain wisdom, we are sure to get what serves 
us better than wisdom, and that is knowledge. In fact, every 
man should be his own master and have his own Bible. 

If what I have said is true, and what I have claimed is 
sound, what do we really owe others, what are our duties and 
obligations to them? None, absolutely and unqualifiedly none. 
If we owe one, we owe all as well, but it is well known that 
it would be impossible for us to serve all or obey all. We came 
into the world a stranger — a poor, feeble, helpless being. We 
are the one that should be served. The strong need no service, 
no assistance. If there is any obligation at all in this world, it 
is not to some master ; not to some one who is abler and 
stronger than we are, but to one who is poor and helpless. It is 
evident enough that we ought not to be taxed, worried and bur- 
dened simply to make soft beds, or perhaps grind axes, for other 
people. But notice the help we are called upon to render and 
the kind of service we are expected to perform. It is not the 
needy or unfortunate to whom we are called upon to pay tribute. 
No, the hard-earned money that we pay in tithes and taxes goes 
towards feeding and supporting an army of fortunate office hold- 
ers, who usually have plenty of time and find very little to do — 
parasites, lords of creation, masters and monarchs, at least for 
the time being, if not for an indefinite period. Our tithes and 
taxes, which come around almost as regularly as the seasons, go 
farther than this. They help pay the salaries and furnish fine 
lodging for the judges of the land, for whom we have not the 
slightest use ; they go to help build splendid edifices that we 
never want and perhaps will never see ; they help maintain the 
army, the navy, and the police, for all of which we have no use 
whatever ; the tithes and duties and taxes that we pay go to 
help the rich bind their fetters upon the poor and to enable the 
employer to keep the iron heel of a master upon his employees 
they go, finally, to help collect other people's debts, defend other 



OUR RIGHTFUL MASTER. 



117 



people's property, educate other people's children and pay other 
people's bills generally. To all this I would enter my solemn 
protest. All I ask is to be let alone, and to be allowed to go my 
way as I like ; and if everybody else would be content with the 
granting of this simple request, we should require no taxes, and 
no government that would call for taxes. It will be noticed 
that all of our troubles in this world come not so much from our 
doing as we like as from an insane desire to have others do as 
we like. It must not be overlooked that while every individual 
is " he " or ' k you " for some one else, he is always " I " for him- 
self, and that while we want our way, other people want their 
way likewise. Government makes the constant mistake of 
treating people as if they had no feelings or wishes of their own 
— in fact, as if they were mere sticks to be kicked about at the 
pleasure of any one who happens to be in authority. But what 
business is it to any one, properly considered, what we do? 
Suppose we drink, suppose we swear, suppose we spend our 
money foolishly, suppose we work little or will not work at all, 
suppose we go with strange women, suppose we drive fast 
horses, whose business or concern is it but our own ? Who has 
a right to interpose on the mere ground that we are making 
fools of ourselves and will by and by get into trouble ? When we 
finally get into trouble, we will probably understand that we 
have made fools of ourselves without being told. 

Moreover, men may honestly differ as to what is foolishness, 
or even wickedness or vice, and what might be foolish or wicked 
under one set of conditions or circumstances, would not be 
deemed so foolish or so wicked under another set of circum- 
stances. We grant religious rights and political rights to men. 
Why shall men not have civil and moral rights likewise ? We 
do not at this late day insist upon any man's having some par- 
ticular religious belief ; we do not even insist upon his having 
a religious belief of any kind, if he does not prefer ; and so in 
regard to political ideas, we do not insist that all men shall 
belong to one and the same party or adopt one and the same 



118 OUR RIGHTFUL MASTER. 

political creed. We even grant that they may not belong to 
any particular party, if such is their wish. Perhaps a man's 
religion or his politics displeases us, what of it ? Possibly in 
return our religion and our politics are not very agreeable to 
him. Yet, no one thinks of insisting that either shall drop 
his politics or his religion and adopt that of the other. But that 
is precisely what we do in all matters that are covered by the 
moral and civil codes. 

We have toleration in matters of politics and religion, but 
none whatever in matters of morality or questions of civil law. 
We insist upon measuring the daily conduct of men, not by 
their own standard, but by ours. We demand that they shall 
do not as they want to do, but as we do, and as we want them to 
do. And we do not by any means confine ourselves to cases 
where we are personally interested in the conduct of others. 
Whether we are affected by such conduct or not, makes no dif- 
ference with us. We want men to do right, and more than that, 
we insist upon the privilege of telling others what is right. In 
fact, we want other men to be better than we are ourselves. We 
make the law, lay down the conditions, fix the standard and then 
demand that everybody (except ourselves ) must square up to it. 
This is a monstrous doctrine, and it does not make the matter 
one bit better because it is very much in vogue to-day in all the 
civilized countries of the earth. Indeed, every man who does 
not do as we think he ought to do, we brand as a heathen and an 
outlaw, and we at once proceed to make war on him accord- 
ingly. The savages, however, have a different way. They 
never think of meddling with the private affairs of their neigh- 
bors. They have customs and traditions, but no laws beyond 
them. A savage is a free man, but a civilized man is a slave. 

It will be remembered that it is only since Christ's time that 
men have undertaken . to any great extent, to control the con- 
duct of others in private matters : and persecution because of 
one's belief is not much older than the Christian era. In 
ancient times men had to reverence the gods and obey their 



MASTER AND SERVANT. 119 

rulers — their duties- as citizens ended there. Before the birth of 
Christ, men were killed in battle, cities were destroyed, but in- 
dividuals as a general thing were permitted to do as they 
pleased. If tribute was demanded, it came not from the in- 
dividual, but from the city or tribe. To make men the slaves 
of law is decidedly a modern discovery. And yet people talk, 
absurdly enough, of making the enforcement of laws con- 
sistent with the freedom of individuals. 

MASTER AND SERVANT. 

No man should be the servant of another, no man should 
labor for another man for pay. Whoever sells his labor sells 
himself, and he is no more his own master. He is a slave, at 
least so long as his engagement lasts. Every able-bodied man 
should help himself, wait upon himself, provide for himself, and 
the same remark would apply to an able-bodied woman, or to 
a child that has passed the age of feebleness and immaturity. If 
a person should be helped at all, it is because of his disability, 
and not because of his rank or position, nor on account of the 
class or clan to which he may happen to belong. Those who 
labor in a subordinate place, should labor with others, rather than 
for others. Their place and position should be like that of the 
child in a family, or that of the apprentice in the old time 
guilds ; or like the individual in a village or country town, 
where there are no ranks and where all stand upon the same 
platform. There should be no aristocracy anywhere. We have 
classes and castes only when the hearts of men are perverted 
and when they become selfish, arrogant and tyrannical. 

A servant, we all know, was a slave (servus). There were 
originally no other servants than slaves. Servants after a 
time take the place of slaves ; that is one of the stages in 
the transition. But there should be no sale of labor to-day. 
All men should be equally free men. Men might aid others as a 
kindness or favor, but never for pay. All men should earn their 



120 MASTER AND SERVANT. 

own living, do their own work and be their own servants and their 
own masters. 

It is known that service is only a form or modification of 
slavery. In feudal times there was no paid service. It should 
be remembered that all slaves are mere things. No laws are 
made for their benefit or for their protection. They have abso- 
lutely no rights. They are merged and lost in the owner — and 
so it is to a considerable extent with the servant. Slaves have 
no soul and there is no heaven for them. All the thoughts and 
conceptions connected with slavery arise from the mere acci- 
dent of a man's being found in the power of another and left 
dependent upon his will. The misfortune in his case was that 
he happened to be the weaker one and so was subdued and 
brought under the yoke. Had he had more strength, more 
cunning or more skill, perhaps the case would have been en- 
tirely different. Then he might have been the master, perhaps, 
and the other fellow the slave. A man has just as much right 
to hold another man in bondage as he has to hold him to ser- 
vice. A servant is in our power, either from want or from some 
other cause, and if it were not for this fact, he certainly would 
not be our servant. That we pay a servant something for his 
services, and do not pay the slave, makes no difference in the 
real nature of the case. We have to support our slaves and we 
leave the servants to support themselves — there is the only dif- 
ference. What we pay our servants is merely what supports 
them, and they often get a poorer living than they would if they 
were slaves. Even the horse that labors for us we are obliged 
to feed. We pay the servant merely because we would rather 
do that than furnish him the house, food and clothes that 
he would need, and in that way we have far less cause for con- 
cern than if he were our slave. If our servant were our slave, 
we would have to furnish medical services and all such things. 
Now we pay the servant, and there our obligation ends. It is 
but a little matter to us if the servant dies, for probably we 
know where we can get another servant for the same or even 



MASTER AND SERVANT. 



121 



less money. It is about the same as if we lose an ox or a horse. 
It is no wonder at all that slavery has been abolished ! It did not 
pay, or at least it was not so cheap and so convenient as our 
present system of hired labor. When we tire of a servant, we 
can change him ; but in the case of the slave the change is not 
so easily made. The slave is property, the servant is not. 

If we did not have hired service, if we did not appropriate 
the avails of the labor of others, we should never become rich. 
Without slavery in some form, no people could accumulate 
riches. It would be only a few thousand dollars that any man of 
himself could earn and save even in a long life time. Yes, he 
might get rich by conquest, but the principle is the same. We 
get our wealth always by taking what other people have earned and 
saved. What difference does it make whether we appropriate a 
man's labor or his property ? His property is identified with his 
labor. It has long been known that no man gets rich by his own 
exertions, or his own labor. A man might avail himself of the aid 
of all the powers of nature, the winds, the waves, the earth, and 
even then his labors would never make him really rich, not even 
if he lived to be a hundred years old. All profits come from the 
labors of other people, and so do all per cents. These, it is well 
known, are the main sources of wealth. I know very well that 
a man might manufacture an article, but he could never get 
rich in that way. The only way that men get rich by man- 
ufacture is by selling their wares for more than they are worth, 
or more than they cost. Men get rich from profits and the profits 
always come from other men. 

How far should we ask or demand help from others ? Shall 
others do our work for us, while we remain idle and receive the 
benefits of their labors ? Perhaps we may with propriety assist 
the feeble, the unfortunate and the helpless by doing work that 
properly does not belong to us to do, but about our obligation in 
that direction, there is room for much question. However, 
whatever we do in this way should be done because we will, not 
because we ought or must. There is no reasonable basis for 



122 MASTER AND SERVANT. 

any such obligation as that. It is a law of nature, if not of na- 
ture's God, that those who cannot help themselves must be left 
to fall by the way. To a great extent that is the rule that pre- 
vails in savage as well as in civilized life. It is evident enough 
that in modern life we do altogether too much to foster in- 
dolence and impotence, by the assistance that we are accustomed 
to render to those who appear to be needy. There is no possible 
question that the number of our paupers is greatly increased by 
our misguided charity in feeding them, instead of enabling them 
to feed themselves. 

Again, I ask, on what ground can I justly avail nryself of 
profits that come from what another man earns, either in whole 
or in part ? Evidently there can be no foundation for any such 
claim. I have no more right to another man's labor than I have 
to his person or his property. There is no relation, no actual con- 
nexion of any kind, between any two independent beings. So, 
how could there be ties or obligations between them ? 

It is clear that I can only insist upon a man's working for 
me. on the condition that he is my slave or vassal. But can a 
man make a binding contract to labor for me — to sell himself to 
me and be my slave, even for a time? I apprehend not. It 
does not accord with our usual way of viewing things. There 
can be nothing valid or binding in a contract that involves the 
slavery of a human being. It is against the most vital interests 
of society. 

The conclusion to the whole matter would seem to be this : 
Every man should do his own work, and never receive any 
recompense except the legitimate product of his own labor. Of 
course under such a condition of affairs, such a thing as riches 
or wealth as we have it now would be impossible, but the 
gradual disappearance of wealth would be no misfortune to the 
world. 

One remark more — people who are compelled to employ 
help in any way must be content to remain dependent, they 
must, practically, be slaves to their own slaves. No man can be 



THE RIGHT OF SELF-CONTROL. 



123 



called independent who is not able to provide for himself and do 
his own work. Dependence upon servants or slaves is just as 
bad as any other kind of dependence. 

THE RIGHT OF SELF-CONTROL. 

It is asked, how shall we have society without government ? 
While it is an evil and without full justification, perhaps it is 
true that we cannot get along without some government. But 
that arises from the fact that there is much which we must yet 
learn. There is much in the realms of truth and fair dealing, 
evidently, that men have not yet discovered. Men ought to be 
able to have organization without government. Men ought to 
be able to associate together for the purpose of the common 
good without even being governed themselves or seeking to 
control the sentiments and conduct of others. Unfortunately 
there is much progress which we must yet make before such a 
step could be taken with any prospect of success. 

But if we must have government, let us have the smallest 
amount of it that is practicable. The best of all governors is 
the one who governs the least. This is as true in the family as 
elsewhere, and more true perhaps there than in matters of 
state. 

The right to govern implies the right to punish ; without 
the right to punish there could be no government in the proper 
sense of the term. If the master had no means of inflicting 
punishment, no means of causing pain for disobedience of orders, 
he would have no control whatever, and the subject would obey 
or not obey, according as his wishes or fancy might dictate. 
There is no government without laws, either written or other- 
wise, and where there are laws, there must be penalties and 
punishments. No law is complete without a penalty, expressed 
or implied. 

The prevailing tendency of thought at the present day is 
towards less punishment — less in families, in schools, in the state. 



124 THE RIGHT OF SELF-CONTROL. 

Ir is found that atfairs proceed more smoothly, and there is 
greater satisfaction and contentment, where people are allowed 
to govern themselves and act upon their ovrn responsibility, 
than where they are not. Men may be advised, instructed, and 
even directed, but no true man suffers himself to be driven like 
a beast. It is against every law of nature : it is against all the 
ordinary promptings of the human heart. Xo one can see what 
he does not see or cannot see. Xo man can see how it is or 
why it is that he should be a slave, to obey the will and whims of 
other men. 

The whole doctrine of mastership, in all its forms, ramifica- 
tions and developments. I emphatically discard. Even the 
father should not be a master over his family. He should be a 
guide, an adviser, an instructor, but never a despot, never an 
overseer, whose only argument is the lash. The father is much 
less a master now than he was in old Roman times. More and 
more, as truer knowledge and purer sentiments prevail, the 
father loses his authority and his right to parental control. He 
no more dares to kill his offspring, as at one time he might do : 
he dares not sell his children into slavery, in any truly en- 
lightened country at the present time, though such a thing may 
still happen in those countries where despotism is the rule, both 
in the family and the state. Even beating and ill-treating 
children, though not strictly against the law. perhaps, is de- 
cidedly against the higher law of public opinion. Xo more is 
the family, in any civilized country, founded upon the doctrine 
of an unlimited monarchy ; no more is the father the law-maker, 
the supreme judge in all things, the irresponsible tyrant whose 
will must be obeyed at all times, without question or considera- 
tion, and without hesitation. Xo more does the wife take the 
position of a slave without murmuring. Xo more is it conceded 
that children must be slaves merely because they are born of a 
slave. 

Government in the state is built up on the theory of govern- 
ment in the family. The family has been the type of all state 



THE RIGHT OF SELF-CONTROL. 



125 



government — it was so in its inception at least. As the theory 
of family government has changed, so the theory of state govern- 
ment has changed. Men are ruled to-day, but not ruled as men 
were ruled one hundred or five hundred years ago. Men are 
slaves still under the authority of the state, but they are slaves 
to whom new rights are granted and new concessions are made. 
Their manhood, or humanity, at least, is not denied them. Men 
are governed altogether too much yet, but it is some satisfaction 
to feel that they are governed more lightly now than they were 
some centuries since. They wear the shackles still, but they are 
fully conscious that they are shackles, rather than articles of 
ornament, and they will never rest contented until those ancient 
symbols of bondage are finally removed. 

Until recently there has been liberty for only a small portion 
of mankind. There has been liberty for the father, but none for 
the family ; there has been liberty for the master, but none for 
the slave ; there has been liberty for the king, but none for the 
subject. Until recently, throughout Europe, as still is the fact 
throughout Asia and Africa, nine-tenths of humanity has been 
held in the most helpless bondage. Even in enlightened Greece, 
liberty was only for the few — the great majority of men in that 
country being, as it is well known, slaves. So it was in Rome ; so 
it was all over Europe for at least 1,500 years. The old Germans 
originally were all free men, but under the authority and in- 
fluence of the Roman empire, from the early centuries of the 
Christian era down to the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
slavery prevailed everywhere in Europe. 

But it must be evident that if there is a right to the use of 
force in government, there must be equally a right to resistance 
on the part of individuals. So, it would be seen that force 
would be required to settle all questions. But why should 
either force or resistance to force be necessary ? It is the writer's 
belief that no force should be used in any case, and consequently no 
resistance would be possible. There can be no reaction unless there 
is action in the first place. If people cannot unite and associate 



126 THE RIGHT OF SELF-CONTROL. 

and live together on friendly terms, they should certainly sepa- 
rate. If it is once conceded that every man may of right say 
and do as he pleases, there can never be any need of calling in 
the help of force. 

The use of the word government should be abolished, or at least we 
should avoid the exercise of government in schools, in families, in com- 
munities and the state. Does the wise father busy himself with 
governing chiefly, with a view to giving evidence of his power or 
his arbitrary disposition ? Is that the course which the success- 
ful teacher pursues in school? Xo. the teacher does not govern, 
does not punish. He leads, he advises, he guides, he instructs. 
The term master is getting to be obsolete. Men do not need 
masters in any of the walks of life. Do we see much attention 
given to governing or mastering in well-ordered corporations? 
Xo. the term in that connexion is little used. The employee 
meets the conditions given by his employer, or he does not. If 
he does not. he speedily takes his departure. So in schools. 
There is no need of governing, no need of inflicting punishments 
of any kind. Governing and punishing belong together — and in 
the end they must go down together. The wise preceptor lets the 
pupil govern himself and punish himself. If he does wrong, he 
suffers the natural, inevitable consequences of his error. Eveiy 
act of real wrong-doing should bring with it its unavoidable evil 
consequences. So it is in nature. Self-government, self-restraint 
is what the world needs now. 

There is one fact that should never be forgotten or over- 
looked, and that is that power is always dangerous. Wealth is 
power, and therefore wealth is always dangerous and aggressive. 
When a man is poor and helpless, we have no occasion to fear 
him. but give him power, and perhaps put arms in his hands, 
and then it is well for everybody to look out for him. A man 
with power is always a tyrant ; the temptations of power are too 
great to be resisted. A poor man. when he obtains power, makes 
just as cruel a tyrant as a rich man does. 



THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 



127 



THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 

It may be necessary to concede that, in the nature of things, 
men must associate together in some manner, but I am inclined 
to deny what is generally assumed to be true, that the larger 
the group, the greater is the benefit to be derived by each in- 
dividual member. Indeed, I should rather claim the reverse: 
that the smaller the group, generally speaking, the less will be 
the sacrifices required and the greater the benefits to be derived 
by each individual. 

Why should men, except in families, associate together at 
all ? It is generally asserted that men associate together simply 
to be enabled to make a stronger and better defence against 
their enemies. But if that is the main reason why men thus 
unite, there is much less occasion for their doing so now than 
there was a few centuries since, when men were more warlike 
in their disposition than they are at present. Men are not 
compelled to unite together now and build a strong^ fortress upon 
some inaccessible rock, as men found it necessary to do in cen- 
turies long since past. A man now who behaves himself 
properly and who does not meddle with other people's affairs, will 
hardly suffer harm in any civilized country on the globe. But 
there is no doubt that men originally came to build towns simply 
because they found that the larger the group to which they 
belonged, the better able they would be to defend themselves 
against their enemies. That was the origin of all the old towns 
and cities of Europe. It must be borne in mind, however, that 
such a state of things existed when war and rapine were the 
chief occupations of men, and when incursions from outside 
enemies might be expected at any time. 

The circumstances of the case are entirely different now. 
There is no necessity for large organizations of any kind, or for 
any groups except the family. A man may go out into the wilder- 
ness, as many a man has done, with nothing but his axe to aid 



128 THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 

him, and nothing but his rifle for protection. It is a well known 
fact that even as things are now, with all the law and gov- 
ernment that we have, men really receive little assistance either 
from the state or their fellow men. It is perfectly well known 
that every man in this world must paddle his own canoe, or he 
will finally find himself going over the dam. 

It is clear that there is no necessity, especially under present 
conditions, for the existence of any groups larger than families, 
but, nevertheless, there seems to be implanted in the nature of 
man a fondness for the society of his fellows, and hence there 
is a disposition for men to unite upon terms of greater or less 
intimacy. But men can associate, and they do, without any 
arrangement between them, and without any bargains or con- 
ditions, and hence without obligations or loss of liberty on either 
side. I am not able to see that any harm can arise from any 
such state of things as this. Such impromptu associations we 
find on the plains, or in the desert, or among nomadic people 
who have no fixed place of abode. In such a case, every man 
remains free and independent ; he is master of his own house- 
hold and pays tribute or homage to no man. There is something 
noble and assuring in a condition of things like this, but it is 
quite different from what is experienced in civilized life, where 
the individual is compelled to give much regularly, in order to 
have an opportunity of receiving a little perhaps occasionally in 
return. 

It must be conceded that the closer the union that exists 
in groups of any kind, the less must be the liberty of each in- 
dividual member. Every man, with his family, should have 
his own work to perform, thus making his own way in the 
world and leaving other people to do as they please, provided 
they do not meddle with Ms affairs. Then there would be free- 
dom for all outside of the family, and each would secure the 
largest amount of happiness that it is possible for man to obtain 
in this life. 

It is impossible for men to associate together and form any 

8 



THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 



129 



organization without binding themselves by contracts. But a 
contract is something that no man should ever make, when it 
can be avoided. In the earlier ages of society few contracts 
were made, and those few were not enforced by law. A con- 
tract is always an obligation that binds and fetters a man. It 
makes a slave of him, so far as the power of the contract ex- 
tends. And so when two or more men unite and obligate them- 
selves by articles of association of any kind, they so far cease 
to be free men. In all such groups, it will be found that only 
one man can have his way at one time. When two men differ, 
as men always will, one or the other must surrender and let the 
other take the lead. And so it is in all societies in which men 
unite or associate together. Where arrangements of this kind 
are deemed necessary for the common good, they should always, 
so far as possible, be temporary. W T henever a man binds him- 
self in any way to do something a long time hence, he will 
almost always find that he has taken upon himself an engage- 
ment that he will dislike to carry out. It is quite probable 
that he will find that things have changed, and that they do not 
appear as they did when the obligation was assumed. 

To be a slave for a few hours, a day, or even a week, is not 
such a bad thing, but to be a slave for life, as men are in society, 
is another matter entirely. As communities are managed at the 
present time, with the rules and laws that prevail, men are 
compelled to sacrifice and surrender too much in order to secure 
the few benefits which they are supposed to receive. In these 
communities, men are constantly hampered with conditions 
that often result in their injury, instead of being the source of 
benefit to them. They are not expected to govern their action 
by what they want or prefer. It is really an arrangement by 
which many men hope to gratify their own selfishness at the ex- 
pense of those with whom they are associated. Originally, as we 
have seen, men united together expecting to receive some benefit 
from the union, but now as there is so little occasion for any 
defence to be made, men seem to be constantly studying to see 



130 THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 

how much they can make by overreaching their neighbors in a 
commercial or business way. 

As matters are now. it is every man's interest to get as far 
removed from society as lie can. But he finds it impossible to 
go so far that the state cannot reach him. nor can he in any 
way hide himself so cleverly that the tax-gatherer will not find 
him. The state is a gigantic octopus that sends out its tentacles 
in every direction, and he is a lucky man indeed who is able to 
keep himself entirely out of their reach. 

Society, as we have it at present, is founded upon govern- 
ment, and it is the general belief that without government 
society could not exist. But I have grave doubts that it can be 
said that such is the fact in any strict sense. We certainly do 
know that society could get along well, nay, even better than it 
does now, with much less government than we have. Men do 
indeed need government — but what is wanted is self-govern- 
ment, rather than the government of one man by another man. 
Men should be controlled in every action of their lives by their 
own judgment, their own sense of right, propriety and justice, 
and not by the varying freaks or the selfish whims of other 
people. The idea that any man should dictate terms or give 
conditions to any other man, or to any set of men, is one of the 
most absurd things conceivable. Men might be permitted to 
reason with their neighbors and perhaps enlighten them by the 
information they might give, but they should never for a 
moment attempt to compel other people to act contrary to their 
own wishes or opinions. 

FASHION AND SLAVERY. 

There is just as much tyranny in fashion as there is in gov- 
ernment of any kind, and in that case, as in every other, the 
thralldom is self-imposed. We all know that fashion possesses 
only an imaginary or problematical existence, and at most it 
has no medium through which it can exercise anything that re- 



FASHION AND SLAVERY. 



131 



sembles actual power. We obey the laws of fashion, and do it 
voluntarily, just as we obey the laws of an imaginary God, or an 
imaginary state, through fear of the consequences. We are 
fearful that unless we implicitly obey the mandates of fashion, 
we shall certainly lose our standing in society, or perhaps some 
patronage that we are anxious to secure. 

Herbert Spencer has shown very clearly that all forms, 
fashions, ceremonies and matters of etiquette, as well as all the 
terms employed in connexion with those observances, are 
founded upon the theory of bondage. All the terms used are 
those which a slave employs when he addresses his master, and 
when he is anxious to natter, conciliate or persuade the one who 
makes rules or laws for his daily observance. We all know what 
affectionate and servile terms men use when they address the 
Deity. Just such language the Chinese use when they address 
their visitors or their acquaintances. Flunkeyism and toadyism 
prevail in social life in all countries, but China seems to surpass 
all others in the depths of self-humiliation and self -degradation 
to which her people have been able to descend in carrying out 
their ideas of propriety in social intercourse. The oriential 
way of addressing acquaintances when they meet is : "I am 
your slave, " " all I have is yours. " Of course they do not mean 
a word of it ; they are merely trying to be polite, and nothing- 
more. We are continually applying in our social affairs titles 
which imply that the people we meet are our masters and we 
are their humble servants. If we address them a letter, we are 
careful to put down at the end of the epistle the silly falsehood, 
that we are their " obedient and humble servant, "or some simi- 
lar nonsense. In all civilized lands, people are extremely fond 
of applying endearing epithets or some kind of title. They 
never address even the most ordinary person unless they prefix 
the title "Mister," "Master" or "Sir." Sometimes the title 
used is "lord" or "lady." Years ago it was common to call 
an ordinary minister a " dominie, " a form of the Latin word 
dominus, a master or lord. 



132 FASHION AND SLAVERY. 

But we do not stop with the use merely of servile language, 
and flattering and deceiving terms, in our daily intercourse with 
men. We carry the same theory of thralldom and inferiority 
into our manners. We take off our hats when we meet a man, 
and we bow to him, just as obsequiously as a negro slave would 
bow if he encountered his master. A man is expected to do 
these things in order to be called a gentleman, and the conclusion 
is irresistible, that to be civil, genteel or polite, is to be a cringing 
sycophant and an accomplished hypocrite. Servility and polite- 
ness always run parallel, if they are not quite identical. Polite- 
ness means deference to others, and servility means the same 
thing. 

But why follow fashion ? AVhy have any fashion ? What 
men decide to do, they should do because it ought to be done, or 
because it seems to them to best meet the requirements of 
their case. A man should get what he wants, and when he 
wants it. and it is a matter of no moment whether it is like or 
unlike that of somebody else. 

In olden times, fashions did not change, because there was 
no need of a change and no occasion for any. People then 
dressed mostly alike, because there was no object in dressing 
otherwise. In those days a man's dress was his uniform and 
showed the class to which he belonged. Fashions then did not 
change with the years or the seasons, because no gain could be 
secured by such a change. Now the case is different. All en- 
deavor to follow every new fashion and thus to prove them- 
selves the equals of everybody else. Things are bought not be- 
cause they are needed, but simply because they are the latest 
thing out. Garments are now rejected, not as they were fifty 
years ago, because they are worn out. but because they are out 
of fashion or their neighbors have better ones. 

Fashion as a rule of action ought to cease to be a law by 
which to govern men. A man who measures his conduct by 
what he sees others do will never be anything more than a poor 
slave. In ancient times men followed tradition and custom, but 



FASHION AND SLAVERY. 133 

then, it must be remembered, these things did not change as 
fashions do now. 

Again, how is a fashion made, or who makes fashions? 
Common people, just such people as those who make laws and 
government, make fashions — some leader in society, some man 
or woman of influence, some lord, some duke, or perhaps the 
heir apparent. But what substantial reason can be given why 
I. or you. my reader, may not make fashions ? Fashions are 
wholly matters of judgment or fancy, and these endowments 
are the common possession of all men. Strictly speaking, the 
right of any one man to make a fashion is just as good as that 
of any other man. 

How much better it would be if fashions were different, and 
if it were not the prevailing custom for people to lie and de- 
ceive. How much happier we would be if we knew every time 
the kind of men we were dealing with and felt contident that 
they meant what they said and said what they meant ! How 
much better it would be if every one were frank, honest and 
upright in all his operations and had the courage of his opinions 
at all times ! How much easier we would feel if we knew that 
when a man invited us to come, he wanted us to come : and 
that if he did not want us to come, he would either say nothing 
about it. or frankly explain why our company might not be 
agreeable. 

It will be noticed that the same spirit of servility that is 
found in fashion pervades every department of civilized life. 
It is more noticeable or more pronounced among the Orientals, 
but the principle is just as fully recognized by all the so-called 
enlightened people of Europe. It is amazing to see how long 
the childhood state lasts among those who call themselves in- 
telligent and cultured men and women. They are more easily 
diverted with ideas than with realities ; they amuse themselves 
with baubles, just as children amuse themselves with ordinary 
playthings. A man puts on an old fashioned French chapeau. 
with a few feathers in the top, wears on his shoulder a strap 



134 FASHION AND SLAVERY. 

with a certain number of stars — that makes him a major 
general, and gives him the command of an army ! The way 
the buttons are grouped on his coat, and the color of the 
girdle he wears, also makes a vast difference in his rank and 
station. An Indian chief carries out the same idea, only he 
uses more paint and a few more feathers. It is really surprising 
to see what an effect such little things will have even among 
refined and highly civilized men ! Fashionable people are also 
much concerned about matters of order and precedence, espe- 
cially on public occasions. If they have a certain rank or title, 
it would worry them greatly if they did not have a particular 
place in line or a certain seat at the table. There is no end to 
such nonsense in aristocratic and highly refined circles. As I 
have before said, the principle of slavery prevails everywhere. 
Everybody must be before somebody or behind somebody. 
There would be no living, if such trifling formalities were not 
duly regarded. Trifles in life make up the sum of human 
affairs. The absence of the merest bit of common paper, called 
a seal, might invalidate a written instrument. It is the bit of 
paper that sanctifies the document and makes it legal. A piece 
of cloth with some color on it. we worship as the flag of our 
country ! If it had a condor on it. instead of an eagle, or if the 
stars were wanting, we would not worship it. because it would 
not be our flag. And in bringing out the truth, on trials, how 
potent is a kiss on a book supposed to be the Bible ! 

Fashions lead to untold miseries. The observances which 
fashion requires, entail upon the devotee much expense and 
an immense amount of worry and fatigue, without resulting in 
the slightest benefit to any one. But why has not the time 
come when men should have minds and wills of their own. and 
should do as sensible and independent men would, at all times 
and under all circumstances ? To be living a life of continued 
lying and deception is not creditable or becoming to any one. 
Why should men be afraid ? It is only their own shadows that 
frighten them. It is what they apprehend, and what never 



FASHION AND SLAVERY. 135 

comes to pass, that causes them so much pain and anxiety. If 
men would hold up their heads and enable their neighbors and 
associates to see that they are not crawling worms to be trodden 
on after all, things would improve at once, and such oppression 
as is now to be observed all over the civilized world would be- 
come practically unknown. It is the sneaking, cringing cur that 
goes along with his head and tail down that uniformly gets the 
kicks. We will never have honest, honorable and magnan- 
imous men, until we first have men who acknowledge no other 
man as their master. 

I despise tinsel, trappings, trumpery and titles — because 
they are all equally shams. All the real difference there is be- 
tween the captain and a private lies in the clothes the two men 
wear and the arms they carry. A title is the most super- 
ficial thing imaginable. A private might be a captain, and a 
captain would be a private, if they would only exchange uni- 
forms. In their nude state nobody could tell one from the 
other. The politeness that we have been considering, or the ser- 
vility or subserviency we might better call it, has its origin in 
the conception that some men are better than others, and hence 
they should be honored or revered. But who is entitled to 
honor or reverence, or who at least besides God himself? Per- 
sonally, I do not believe in honoring or worshiping any human 
being. One man is as good as any other man. but he is no bet- 
ter. There might be some excuse for worshiping a being such 
as God is supposed to be — if we could find out where he is — 
but when it comes to the question of worshiping some human 
being, there is no room for argument. The whole Bible, as well 
as reason itself, is opposed to the doctrine. All that men do 
must come under one of two categories. They either do what 
they ought to do. or what they ought not to do. If they merely 
do what we have a right to expect of them, they certainly are 
entitled to no particular credit, and if they do what they ought not 
to do. of course they would claim no credit or honor. For noth- 
ing that men do or leave undone, can they justly claim any reward. 



136 FASHION AND SLAVERY. 

Of this one thing I am tired — heartily tired — and that is of 
doing things for no other reason in the world than that some- 
body else has done or is doing or will do the same thing ; some- 
body else has bought a book or recommended a patent ; some- 
body else is going to the meeting, or somebody else is coming to 
the party ; somebody else has given five dollars, and therefore I 
ought to give a like amount. Nothing is so arbitrary as fashion, 
particularly if you are in the least inclined to submit to it and 
let it have its own way. It should never be forgotten that any 
one who makes himself a slave to fashion is just as pusillanimous 
as one who makes himself a slave to any other master. No one 
likes to appear odd ; no one likes to offend those with whom he 
is called upon to associate ; no one likes to oppose fashion. But 
suppose it is fashion itself that is odd and is making all the dis- 
turbance ! Are you not — is not anybody — just as good and just 
as worthy every way as the one who makes fashions ? Why may 
not any one make the fashions for himself, if not for every one 
else? No, men have just as much right to make fashions for 
other men as they have to make laws for them to observe — and 
that is just no right at all If people were not so anxious to get 
rich, they would endure less and be more independent. The 
best way. it would seem, would be for people to go where they 
wish to go and where they ought to go, without taking much 
thought as to who is ahead of them or who is behind them ; and 
as to the matter of giving, they should give what they want to 
give and because they feel that they ought to give and would 
like to give just what they finally decide to give. 

BORROWING AND BONDAGE. 

It is commonly supposed that Satan has a genius for inven- 
tions and schemes, and when one of his plans does not succeed, 
it is said that he is prompt to try some other method. In other 
words, he is remarkably fertile in expedients. Assuming this 
theory to be well founded, there can be but little doubt that 



BORROWING AND BONDAGE. 137 

borrowing and lending, with the debts, claims and obligations 
that follow in their train, is an invention of the devil. It is cer- 
tain that the purpose of such a contrivance is to enslave one 
class of men and put them in the power of another class, and 
that being the end in view, the experiment must be pronounced 
a most complete success. Men who borrow, who owe debts and 
who place themselves under bonds or under obligations to other 
men, cease to be their own masters and become the property of 
the lender or mortgagee, and at the same time they enter into 
the most miserable state of dependence in which a man can be 
placed. We must go back to old Roman times, if we wish to 
have a proper understanding of the true theory of debt. A 
man who owed a debt in those days was generally little es- 
teemed ; he had no rights ; he could be sold in slavery, he 
could be imprisoned, and in certain contingencies, his body could 
be cut in pieces. Even Shy lock, in later days, it will be re- 
membered, was resolved to have his pound of flesh from his 
debtor, according to the condition nominated in the bond. The 
law, in all countries, has borne heavily upon debtors and upon 
those who have given pledges or made contracts. The law is 
wholly on the side of the creditor ; it is the creditor that the 
state, with all its power, uniformly assists and defends — never 
the debtor. The creditor has a claim, and the business of the 
state is to enforce claims, but a debtor has no claim, and so has 
nothing to be enforced. In this, as in all other cases, the state is 
merciless ; the state, it will be remembered, is a machine, and 
has no more feeling than machines usually have. 

The prevailing practice, in all civilized countries, of incur- 
ring debts and entering into obligations, is the leading source of 
the miseries with which the masses of mankind are generally 
afflicted. In this practice will be found also the chief source of 
wealth for those who in a few years succeed in amassing a for- 
tune. They lend, in various ways and under various pretences, 
not only to secure their per cent, and interest, but to get the un- 
fortunate debtor wholly in their power. They encourage him to 



138 BORROWING AND BONDAGE. 

borrow, just as the merchant encourages his customer to buy 
on trust. Men that borrow invest uniformly beyond their 
means, and those that buy on credit buy more than they want, 
and usually they pay very dear, in high prices, interest and 
costs for the accommodation they receive. 

There is really no excuse for a man's borrowing at any time, 
or for his running into debt in any way. It is a pretty safe rule 
that what a man cannot pay for he had better dispense with 
until he has more means. The borrower is simply laboring con- 
stantly for the capitalist and money-lender : he is the client 
of the capitalist and pays tribute to him as if the latter were 
his lord and master. If it were not for this tribute that 
the poor and unfortunate are constantly paying to the rich, the 
rich would themselves make but slender accumulations. It is 
through debt mainly that people in civilized lands are kept in 
perpetual bondage ; a little reflexion must convince any one that 
no man can call himself free and independent, so long as he is in 
debt and under obligations to others. However, it is not really 
a man's indebtedness that enslaves him. but his poverty and 
helplessness, and his inability to pay on demand. Of course 
men borrow, as business goes now, who are not poor, but even 
such men take many risks. They sometimes make money by 
borrowing, but they often lose. The men who become bank- 
rupt are uniformly those who owe more than they are able to 
pay. iTo other nan fail. 

Another feature to be noticed in this connexion is that of a 
man's becoming security for another, simply as a matter of 
business or duty — endorsing a friend's note, going on his bond, 
becoming a hostage for the keeping of his friend's promise, or 
for the performance of his friend's contract. Here we find 
another fruitful source of misery and wretchedness in civilized 
life. It is bad enough for a man to incur debts on his own ac- 
count, but it is immeasurably worse and vastly more foolish 
when he assumes the debt of some other man, over whose con- 
duct or action he has not the slightest control. It is a kind of 



BORROWING AND BONDAGE. 139 

vicarious sacrifice for which I can see no excuse. I cannot see 
the slightest justification for a man's ruining himself, destroying 
the happiness of his family, leaving himself and them destitute, 
for no other reason than simply to please some one else — and 
even in that effort he usually fails at last. It is a mistaken con- 
ception of a man's obligation to his friend and neighbor. As 
the reader by this time must be well aware, the author does not 
believe in voluntary sacrifices at any time or for any purpose, 
and especially not in sacrifices made for the mere gratification of 
some one else. He can see no reason why he should give up 
either his life or his property to save some one else for whose 
condition and misfortune he is in no way responsible. Cer- 
tainly, a man's first duty is to himself in all cases. 

The first and most important step towards absolute or prac- 
tical freedom, is to stop incurring debts, or entering into con- 
tracts, or assuming obligations of any kind. That step alone 
would relieve this world of most of its miseries and misfortunes. 
Of course, if we ceased to have debts and mortgages and claims 
and obligations, some men would cease to get rich, but that fact 
alone would of itself be a very great blessing to mankind. I have 
only to repeat, that wealth never made any people happier or 
better — I mean surplus wealth, wealth that nobody can use and 
that is actually a damage and a source of trouble and worry to 
the possessor himself. 

It might be added that civilization is making the same pro- 
gress and going through the same stages in South Africa to-day 
that it does in the early history of all countries. In Natal the 
East Indians are doing for that country what the Jews did in 
Hungary and Poland. A recent account says: "They traffic 
with the natives by means of wily ways which westerners can 
emulate at a distance. The trader first gives the negro drink, 
then encourages him to buy what he would not have bought 
when sober, then coaxes him into debt, and allows him credit out 
of proportion to his capacity in ready money. Then, when the 
native is likely to be most embarrassed by a demand upon him, 



140 THE RIGHT TO RTTLE. 

the Hindoo presents his little bill, and threatens legal proceedings 
if it is not immediately paid. The trader, however, does not 
wish it paid, and thus he can pretend to accommodate the native 
who is not able to pay it. The Natal Shylock asks only a promis- 
sory note or a mortgage, along with a stipulation that his debtor 
shall trade with no one excepting himself. Thus, out of a little 
original debt of a few shillings, the black man has converted 
himself into a bond-slave of the Jew. paying to him everything 
that he can possibly earn, and remaining unto the day of his 
death in a condition differing only in name from that of slavery. 
Wise men see this great wrong that is done, but no government 
has yet ventured to cope with it." And are such methods un- 
known in this country ? 

THE RIGHT TO RULE. 

Men delight to talk about authority. But the people would 
naturally ask : * ' Authority from whom, authority over what ? " I 
am not able to understand how any man comes to have author- 
ity ; I do not know any source from which authority might be 
derived. And yet there are men who are perpetually telling 
you what to do ; they are authority on taste, authority on 
morals or law. or on the Scriptures. There is an authority that 
is supposed to come from the state, and an authority that is 
supposed to come from the church. Over and above these 
sources, there is an authority that comes from men who assume 
to be possessed of power and influence. 

But suppose I do not recognize any such authority, what is 
to be done with the matter ? The only man who really has 
authority when it comes down to a question of final results, is 
the one who has the strongest arm. the longest knife, or the 
readiest revolver : or who has the largest number of followers 
at his command. Beyond some such condition as that, there 
is no such thing as authority in any department of life. 

Of all the men that I dread, it is those who claim to speak 



THE RIGHT TO RULE. 141 

by authority — men that have a message from God, or from 
some other unknown source. Such men are like the Indians ; 
they dream, and what they dream, they take for reality. One 
man may know more than other men do — indeed, that must 
necessarily be so in this world — but knowledge does not, any 
more than strength, confer rights or privileges upon individuals. 

If we carefully examine the pages of history, we shall find 
that the idea of having people ruled by a power outside of them- 
selves and above themselves, was something entirely foreign to 
the views of the early inhabitants of Europe. This was espe- 
cially so with the early Germans. Their herzog, duke or gen- 
eral, was selected and named only for a certain occasion, some 
particular war perhaps, and when that was over, he dropped 
back into the ranks and becams one of the paople once more. 
But by gradual assumptions and encroachments, this duke event- 
ually became recognized as a king. However, even the old 
German king was no such personage as our latter day sovereign. 
He was merely an agent, a minister, a servant — a man who was 
not a master over anybody, but a guide and director for all. So, 
in other countries, the oldest government of which we have any 
record was that by a few select elders, who advised, instructed, 
urged, but never governed. 

But with us now. in these days of wealth, civilization and 
acquired power, tilings are quite different. Even in a Democ- 
racy, we are ruled as it were by a foreign power. Our officers 
are strangers, and they have ceased to be as one of us. Instead of 
being our representatives, they merely carry out their own 
views and consult their own interest. They are for the time 
being our masters, and we are simply their slaves. They order 
and we must obey. 

It would be better for our people, as a whole, if we could get 
back to the practice of olden times, when there was no law but 
community law, which was unwritten, but well understood by 
all. No man acknowledged any man as his master in those 



142 



THE RIGHT TO RULE. 



days. There was no government then, properly so-called. Ad- 
visers, elders, councillors they had, but no rulers. 

The old German king was a judge ; he was the highest 
judicial officer in the country. And it must be remembered that 
even in these degenerate times of ours, we accord to our sov- 
ereign the highest of all judicial privileges, and that is to grant 
pardons to offenders. So, too, the old German and old English 
parliament was only a council, a gathering of lords, nobles, 
spirituals and leading men of the realm — mark, a council, to 
consult and advise, but not even representative in the modern 
sense of the term. Such members represented nobody but 
themselves. Assemblages of that kind date back as early as the 
fourth century, and give us some idea of how people were led, 
not ruled, in those days. In the early centuries of European 
history, the king's edicts had the power of laws. Kings spoke 
not their own views, but they declared the views of the people, 
and their edicts began with the words "I, the people, " or "to- 
gether with the people," or "in accordance with the views of 
the council. " Kings never assumed to have their own will pass 
as law. And even in our later days the people are allowed to 
flatter themselves with the belief that they make the laws, be- 
cause they are made in the name and with the sanction of the 
people. All laws were originally the edicts merely of the 
officer having the supreme authority at the time. In Rome the 
praetor made laws in the form of edicts. And even in America 
the president of the republic or the governor of the state can 
make laws in the form of a proclamation in certain pressing 
emergencies. In old Eoman times the laws were made by kings 
consulting with his council of meliores et majores. 

Down to the last century legislation or law-making was con- 
sidered an exceptional step and an act of policy, and in England 
at least it was regarded with great jealousy. Eastern nations to 
this day are governed by custom, rather than written law. The 
old-time legislator in Europe never conceived the idea of convert- 
ing his own individual will into law. His duty was merely to 



THE RIGHT TO RULE. 



143 



declare what was law and custom. He never attempted to make 
what might be called a new law. It must be remembered that 
legislation is still with us only one of the sources of law — but it 
is daily becoming a much more fruitful source than it ever was 
before. 

It is easily seen as we look back into the history of the past, 
that we are, so far as law-making is concerned, in a state of 
decay. "VVe have carried the making of new laws so far that it 
has become really a source of national disease. 

The first government of which we have any record, is that 
which is found in families. It is supposed that government as 
it exists in society has been patterned after government in 
families, being simply a development of paternal rule. It is 
well known that all Asiatic governments are more or less pa- 
triarchal in character ; the king is the father and he disciplines, 
directs and provides for his people as if they were his children. 
In eastern countries all government and authority belongs to 
the sovereign, and submission and obedience is left for the 
people. The masses are properly called subjects, for they are 
responsible to their ruler for all their thoughts and actions, and 
it is by his permission alone that men are allowed to live, move, 
and have their being. 

There is something so anomalous and unnatural in one man's 
assuming authority over the life and conduct of his fellow man, 
that sovereigns have always deemed it necessary to explain or 
justify their assumption of power by falling back on some 
higher authority. Sovereigns always endeavor to convince their 
subjects that their authority is divine in its nature, that God has 
commissioned them to govern others, and that it is their privi- 
lege to mark out for them the course in life which it is best for 
them to pursue. Kings always appeal to God as a justification 
for everything they do, whether it be good or evil. They take 
the church under their care and protection with all the apparent 
fondness of a parent for his offspring. The church helps the 
state, and the state helps the church. Indeed, it has only been 



144 THE RIGHT TO RULE. 

in quite recent times that it was deemed possible for the one to 
exist without the support and assistance of the other, and we 
are not aware that there is to-day a single sovereign that does 
not ally himself with the church in some manner. The proudest 
monarch must be able to see that if he cannot base his authority 
on the mandates of God. he really has no foundation at all for 
his claims. Certain, it is, it has never yet been the conceded 
prerogative of any man to put a crown upon the head of another 
man and thus give him a commission to rule over a certain por- 
tion of this earth. 

But it must be evident to every thinking man that this 
claim of having divine authority is simply a fraudulent pre- 
tence or phantom with which to amuse and delude people, while 
they are being bound hand and foot. The only divine right that 
any monarch possesses is that which is obtained by the superior 
might or superior cunning of either himself or his ancestors. 
Monarchs do not descend from God, and they cannot show any 
official seal or signature which gives any evidence of authority 
derived by them from any divine source. Men come to be kings 
either by conquest, by descent, or by the votes or voices of their 
fellow men. God has no more to do with the crowning of a 
king than with the hanging of a pirate, or the killing of a rob- 
ber. 

Unquestionably, the authority under which men are to 
govern men must come finally from some other source than the 
Scriptures. It is evident enough that the intimate relations 
supposed at one time to exist between God and sovereigns are 
all a matter of imagination. The doctrine of infallibility and 
divine commission must be discarded forever. 

What excuse, then, or what justification can there be for the 
assumption of authority by one man over another ? Properly 
speaking, there is none whatever. A man has no more right to 
enforce his will upon another man than he has to take his life 
from him or his property. In fact, if it is conceded that the 
sovereign may have absolute authority over the subject, it must 

9 



THE RIGHT TO RULE. 145 

follow as a matter of course that the sovereign may have 
the power of life and death over him, whenever the occasion 
may seem to demand the exercise of such authority. Such was 
the theory and practice during all those ages in the past of which 
history furnishes us any record. When a man conquered 
another he had the right to kill him, and he generally availed 
himself of the privilege. Later on, the practice was so modified 
that the conqueror allowed his captive to live on condition of 
becoming his slave. This change of practice did not arise from 
any improved sentiment, or from any sympathy for the op- 
pressed, but because the conqueror found that a living slave was 
more profitable than a dead captive. It must be remembered 
that the slave always held his life at the mercy of the con- 
queror. And is not the theory and practice the same to-day, 
even in the most civilized states? Is not the state, the sov- 
ereign, permitted to drag the conscript from his home, drive 
him to battle, and force him even up to the cannon's mouth ? 
Did not England make a practice of impressing seamen, without 
a shadow of right, either legal or otherwise ? War, which by 
the way the state is itself usually responsible for, is one of the 
excuses which it makes for taking the life of the subject, but 
there are plenty of other excuses that are no better founded. 
It can take the life of the citizen when it pronounces him guilty 
of certain crimes, such as murder, arson and treason, and not 
long since, for even much milder offenses. The state, the party 
in interest, first determines for itself what is criminal, then pro- 
nounces a man guilty, and finally administers such punishment 
as suits its fancy as a sovereign ! What could be more mon- 
strous than such a proceeding, when you consider it in all its 
enormity ? 

The fact must never be lost sight of that the right to govern 
implies everything ; it implies absolute control over a man's 
peace, his person, his property, and his life. That is the power 
possessed by the state, even in so-called democracies like ours. 
The state determines a man's course in life, and to a large ex- 



146 THE RIGHT TO RULE. 

tent also the number of his days, and. finally, while he lives, it 
fixes the limit of his sufferings or enjoyments. Properly con- 
sidered, the subject of a state is the most miserable slave that 
the imagination can conceive of. He is in the power of the sov- 
ereign absolutely, and he has but one single privilege really, and 
that is the privilege of rebelling. Even that would be denied 
him, if rebellion were something that could by any possibility be 
brought under government control. As it is. he is rendered as 
helpless as possible, and he is denied every weapon with which 
a free man would naturally defend himself. 

The origin of government cannot be traced to any prescrip- 
tive right derived from any higher source than man. Govern- 
ment is clearly not a matter of right, of justice, or even of neces- 
sity. The only question that remains is whether it is expedient . 
That is the subject which we now come to consider. This is 
identical with the question whether slavery is expedient. The 
relations between the governor and the governed are in no 
essential respect different from those of the master and slave. 
Mastery lies at the foundation' of all sovereignty. But if it is 
demonstrated that every governor must be a master, it must 
necessarily follow that every subject must be a slave. All his- 
tory demonstrates the truth of these propositions. Every sub- 
ject is absolutely in the power of government, and being entirely 
without ability to resist, he must be absolutely destitute of 
liberty. Weakness and liberty are never allied : wherever 
there is want of power, there bondage must follow. The subject 
has some privileges, like the slave, but like those of the slave, 
they are simply privileges granted by the master or sovereign. 
The citizen has absolutely nothing of his own. 

Slavery is never expedient. No one has ever pretended that 
it was really expedient for the slave, for nothing compensates 
for want of liberty. No man. we venture to say. was ever 
better off for being unconditionally in the power of some other 
man. No people have ever yet gained anything more than a 
temporary advantage by surrendering themselves to some one 



THE RIGHT TO RULE. 



147 



that is stronger. All that a man gains at the expense of liberty 
is so much that is not worth having. When a man loses con- 
trol over his own action and over his way of living and doing, 
he has lost everything that has any real value for him and he 
might better be buried, But up to the last hundred years or so, 
it was supposed that slavery was expedient for the master. 
However, that position is now abandoned by every enlightened 
people on the globe. The few who still cling to the idea that 
slavery is a good thing for the master are those who have not 
yet progressed far enough in the study of practical life to enable 
them to understand facts as men with clear and acute minds 
would understand them. 2fo, slavery can never be expedient — and 
the same thing is true of all government. Government, in the 
strict sense of the term, is never expedient. 

People are entirely mistaken about the amount of govern- 
ment that is really needed in civilized life. There are those 
who imagine that things would promptly go to ruin, if we 
should happen to have an interregnum and people should be 
compelled to go along without a governor for any considerable 
time. But did God make any governors? Who are our born 
masters that are found to be indispensable in this world ? Who 
are the men that we ought to know and recognize on sight as 
our lawful and natural-born rulers ? Show us even one of these 
God-created and God-chosen beings that can readily be distin- 
guished from ordinary mortals. 

But is it not more reasonable to believe that, if God had 
any plans at all on the subject, he so made man and so provided 
him with the means of sustenance and defense that he was pre- 
pared to take care of himself, like the birds of the air and the 
beasts of the field ? If he did not he certainly cannot be called a 
success as a contriver or creator. Creatures that cannot take 
care of themselves must be looked upon as abortive or defective, 
and they ought never to have been sent out into the world under 
any circumstances. But the lower orders of creation, and animals 
of all kinds, do take care of themselves, even without the aid 



148 



THE RIGHT TO RULE. 



or co-operation of others. Why should not man, with all his 
boasted strength and intelligence be able to do as well ? 

The trump card which is played by those who put forward 
such extravagant claims for government, is that which is 
marked with the word ''protection" — men must have govern- 
ment, in order to be protected against their enemies ! But 
where does this protection come from, when it does come ? 
It rarely comes from the officers of the state, or from those who 
call themselves the state, in the first place. The initiative in 
the way of protection and assistance is uniformly taken by the 
men whom the person knows, or by the community in which he 
lives — by those who are on the ground and who know the facts 
long before they are ever brought out in court. They are the ones 
who either give assistance when it is needed, or at least put the 
wheels of government in motion and get the officers of the law 
interested in the first place. As a rale, the community does the 
most important part of the work in such cases, if not the whole 
of it, and why could it not do this work as well, or better, with- 
out the assistance or at least the intervention of government? 

If a thief is to be arrested or a robber is to be caught, 
who is it that starts in the matter ? Rarely the officers of the 
law, for it is seldom that they are found where they are most 
wanted. Generally it is the people who have no connexion 
with the government that do most of the business. If a 
man is set upon by ruffians, or is attacked by robbers on the 
highway, who assists him, if he receives any assistance at all ? 
It is not some officer but some ordinary citizen, who happens 
to be passing by or looking on, some man who does what he 
does entirely independent of the law, from the natural prompt- 
ings of the heart , and without compensation. This is the source 
from which men in an emergency get their assistance in 
ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. So, how does it appear that 
we need government simply for the sake of protection ? 

The best illustration of the fact that men can live and thrive 
without the application of force or the service of some master, is 



THE RIGHT TO RULE. 



149 



to be found in the management of the fraternal societies that 
are so numerous in large communities. There is no government 
in these organizations — none properly so called. In the first 
place, they admit their members, and reject those that are not 
congenial or not desired, and that is a method that ought to be 
followed in every community. No man should presume to 
settle down in any place as a matter of right. His antecedents 
and character should be known, and he should be accepted or 
rejected according to the record he has made in the past. In 
that way, tramps, vagabonds, criminals and rascals would uni- 
formly be kept out. In the societies that we are considering, a 
member understands what is required of him, and he does it. 
There is no punishment, no application of force of any kind ; 
each individual member is just as good and just as powerful as 
any or all the others. A man either behaves himself, and re- 
mains, or he does not behave himself and goes out. That is all 
there is of it, and in practice it is found that such a rule is all 
that is necessary. Instead of having an interest in offending his 
brother members and keeping the whole order in confusion, he 
has every interest to be at peace with his brethren, and thus 
have the respect and esteem of those with whom he is asso- 
ciated. 

How unfounded is our belief that everybody needs govern- 
ment from some outside source ! We grew up under the rule 
of others, and we imagine that there is no way of getting along 
in this world without either mastering somebody, or being mas- 
tered ourselves. We govern and punish our children chiefly for 
the reason that we ourselves were governed and punished by 
our parents. We have government in this country mainly be- 
cause our ancestors lived under government before they came 
to this continent. People who remove to foreign shores uni- 
formly carry their habits and customs, and, so far as practicable, 
their ideas of law and government, with them. When our ances- 
tors shaped their government, after independence was achieved, 
they shaped it almost entirely after the model with which they 



150 THE RIGHT TO RULE. 

were acquainted, that of the mother country. Our ancestors 
did as they did because they knew no other way. Had there 
been a hundred better ways., how should they have known about 
them ? They simply did as well as they knew. 

It is a serious mistake to suppose that when men are assem- 
bled together for any purpose, they would at once proceed to tear 
each other in pieces, if it were not for the interposition of the 
officers of the law. It is a fact that we have gatherings and 
crowds in thousands of instances where the officers of the law 
are never seen, and where they are never needed, because the 
people conduct themselves in an orderly and peaceful manner 
without them. It should not be forgotten that most of our 
gatherings are held independently of law and without its pro- 
tection. Multitudes of people, a thousand or two thousand at a 
time, men of different nationalities, cross the ocean in steam- 
ers, being crowded together for days, and even weeks, and yet 
everything goes on in an orderly manner, though no court is 
held and no officer of the law is present. 

It should be remembered that when men claim that we need 
government, they at the same time claim that we need punish- 
ment. Punishment is of the very essence of government, and 
where there is no punishment, there can be no government. 
Government exists only so far as force is applied, and the only 
way that man can be moved by force, is by the infliction of 
pain or by the adoption of methods that produce fear and dread 
on the part of the subject. 

And then the question that naturally arises is this : what 
is it that government actually does for us ? Will any one pre- 
tend that our health is better, that our habits are better, or 
that our character is better than were the health, habits and 
character of people who lived a hundred years ago. when there 
were less laws and fewer masters than we have now ? Are we 
in any way wiser, any happier, or any better in any respect than 
our ancestors were who lived in a simpler and more modest way 
centuries ago ? It would seem that any competent observer and 



THE RIGHT TO RULE. 



151 



unprejudiced judge would answer in the negative. We are not 
happier nor more virtuous, nor more noble than our ancestors 
were. That fact is well enough established. Whether it is a 
cause or merely a coincidence, it is a fact that with our constant 
increase of laws, ordinances and regulations, our people are 
becoming more corrupt, more selfish, more dishonest and more 
immoral every day. It is evident enough that an increase in 
power and the multiplying of laws, on the part of the state, do 
not have a tendency to make men better, but rather the re- 
verse. 

Civilization and much regulating of conduct through laws 
and ordinances seem to go together. If people were entirely 
free and were left to govern their own affairs in their own way, 
we would never have civilization as the term is understood now. 
To have civilization and culture to any extent, we must have 
wealth, and wealth implies power concentrated in such a man- 
ner as to enable men to get wealth. If all men had equal rights 
and privileges, of course no man would be a slave or servant of 
another, and without servitude in some form, there could be no 
such thing as an accumulation of wealth. It is only when 
people can avail themselves of other people's labors, that a few 
of them, under especially favorable conditions, can become rich. 
In no other way is such a thing possible. So, I repeat again, 
that the multiplying of laws, the development of wealth and 
advancement in civilization all alike imply servitude on the part 
of a portion, and generally a very large portion, of mankind. 



REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 



It would seem to be a well ascertained fact that what , is 
called representative government must be pronounced a chimera 
or delusion. In other words, in government, there is no such 
thing as a man's being represented, or having his wishes carried 
out and his place filled by another. 



152 REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

Let us examine into the facts and see how representative 
government works in America. Who are our real representa- 
tives, or how are we represented by them? We elect men — or 
we imagine we do — and then we allow them to go on and do as 
they please. In effect they become our rulers, and they are 
very much such rulers as we find under any form of government. 
They avail themselves of every opportunity to carry out their 
own plans and provide for their own advancement, and pretty 
generally it is found to be with them as it is with other people, 
that the public good is a side issue, a sort of secondary matter. 
Why, in fact, we in America are ruled — just as truly and as em- 
phatically ruled — as any people in Europe. We are taxed, just 
as systematically and persistently taxed, as the subjects are 
under an eastern despotism. We are the poor, helpless sheep 
who are shorn year after year, under various excuses or pre- 
texts, for the benefit of those who call themselves " the state. " 
How were we as citizens of a free country treated during the 
war of the Rebellion ? Was there ever any despotic government 
that treated its own people so heartlessly as the people on the 
Union side were treated by those who assumed to be the gov- 
ernment, during our civil war? Think of the cruel conscrip- 
tions, of the men that died in prisons, of the lives lost in hos- 
pitals, as well as on the battlefield ; think of the wives left 
homeless and of the children left fatherless ; think of the vast 
sums of money squandered in that war, and then think of the 
toil and suffering required, on the farm and in the workshop, 
from those who were compelled to produce that money ! And 
were those terrible sacrifices made by the people of their own 
free will ? Only to a very limited extent can such a thing be 
said to be true. No people as a body desires war. A wild, in- 
tractable, or a selfish majority may, but the people as a whole 
never does. Certainly the war of 1861-5 was not the work nor 
the wish of the American people. It was the work of politi- 
cians, and to a large extent of designing and unscrupulous dem- 
agogues, who had interests or prejudices to gratify, by having 



REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 153 

the country plunge into a war. The people would never, in the 
south or in the north, have voted to declare war. The people 
were forced into the conflict and were driven forward at the 
point of the bayonet like cattle selected for slaughter. Talk 
about the horrors of slavery ! Are not the horrors of slavery 
always far surpassed by the horrors of conscription ? What be- 
comes of freedom in a representative government at any time 
when war is declared and military law prevails ? Who has any 
sort of representation then, save those who are the managers of 
the ruling party, or who happen to have full control of the ma- 
chine ? And it must not be forgotten that these managers con- 
stitute, so far as numbers are concerned, only an insignificant 
portion of the people as a whole. 

As a further illustration of how far the people rule under a 
representative government like ours, we might refer to the 
action of congress on the silver question in the fall of 1893. No 
one would deny that a very large majority of the people of the 
whole country desired a change at once in the free silver law as 
it had existed for some years. The people wanted less silver 
bought by the government and piled up in the treasury than had 
been the practice, and when silver was to be coined, they 
wanted more of the metal put into the pieces than had been used 
for some time. But what did congress, or the senate especially, 
care for the wishes of the people, or for the desires of the whole 
or of any part of the country ? The senators had their own 
views, and evidently they did not for a moment realize that 
they were representing any one but themselves, or perhaps 
themselves and a few personal friends. And this is the way 
that representation works usually, not only in this country, but 
wherever a representative government exists. The representa- 
tives endeavor to carry out the wishes of their own constituents 
so long as those wishes and their own do not happen to differ ; 
but when a disagreement comes, the people are certain to find 
their wishes disregarded, in every instance. This is the way 
that matters have worked in legislation ever since representa- 



154 REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

tive government has been known. No one can decide what leg- 
islators will do, whenever a pressing emergency arises. They 
will consult the wishes of their constituents if they find it 
policy to do so, and otherwise they will not. Sometimes dele- 
gates or representatives are instructed, but even such a step 
affords no guarantee that the delegates will do precisely as they 
are requested. 

What made matters worse, in the case of the silver bill, was 
that a minority of the senate was able to block the wheels of 
legislation for some time and prevent the enactment of laws de- 
manded by the country. Can this be called representation for 
the people ? Again, it must be remembered that our senate is 
elected for six years, and it usually takes that length of time 
before a radical change can be made in that body. How can it 
be said to represent the wishes of the people ? What the people 
desire, they want now. Six years hence they may want some- 
thing else. What people desire, and what they have a right to 
insist upon, is representation of their thoughts, feelings, ideas 
and wishes as they exist to-day. 

Viewed in any fair light, it is evident that in no branch of 
government are people, the whole people, really represented. 
Our representatives, no matter how chosen, are our rulers, just 
as much so as the master is in school, or the captain on the ship, 
or even the king on his throne. 

What sense can there be in speaking of a people's govern- 
ing themselves in a representative government, if we use the 
term government in its ordinary acceptation? Government 
implies two parties, the one that governs and the one that is 
governed. It is impossible to conceive of one without the other. 
Government implies force or power exercised by one party over 
another party. How can a man or men govern themselves in 
any such sense? The fact is, that when we speak of self-gov- 
ernment, there is either no government at all, or the government 
is of the usual kind, namely, of one over another, and properly 
not the government of one's self. As a matter of fact there is 



REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 155 

no more of real self-government, or of the people's governing 
themselves, in America than there is in Russia or Persia. In all 
countries where there is a government of any kind, the people 
are governed by a force outside of and apart from themselves. 
There can be no other government. 

John Stuart Mill says, every man should vote, every man 
should be consulted on public measures in which he is as much 
concerned as the rest. But what matters it whether a man does 
or does not vote, if he happens to be in the minority, and his 
vote does not count? What is the sense in consulting me. if the 
part}', or the leaders, go on and do as they please, regardless of 
what I think or advise ? Indeed, is it practicable that a man's 
wishes or ideas should count where he associates himself in any 
way with others ? In the very nature of the case, unless two 
men happen to agree, they cannot both have their own way. 
Those who are strong, either from force of numbers or some 
other cause, will triumph and the rest must succumb. If my 
vote does not avail. I am for all practical purposes disfranchised, 
and that is the case with at least one out of every three at every 
election. So much is absolutely certain. Force controls in such 
cases just as it does in a despotism. "What difference does it make 
to me whether I am kept down by one big giant, one powerful 
despot, or by a thousand small despots, as is uniformly the case 
in a democracy ? The most abominable of all tyrannies is that 
of the majority. Passion or prejudice is more apt to sway a 
crowd than an individual. In crowds, the rage of one adds to 
the rage of the whole. 

All there is that is in any way attractive and enjoyable 
under a democratic form of government is the diversion that 
people obtain by exercising the elective franchise. Nearly 
all the work done in the name of the state is done under false 
colors. People imagine they have the power, when the fact is 
they have none. It is like the trifle with which the child is 
amused, while at the same time it is kept in close confinement. 
The only case where votes would be certain to count, and where 



156 REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

the people might be sure of having some power, would be where 
a unanimous vote was required, as in jury trials. 

In practice, in all representative governments, it is party 
rule that prevails. And what is the propriety of talking about 
liberty, or about true representation, in a country where a party 
controls the government, and the "boss" controls the party? 
There is Tammany Hall, for instance, in New York City. Was 
there ever in the wide world anything more despotic than the 
rule of that body ? Was there ever a case where pure selfishness 
on the part of a few individuals was allowed such absolute 
sway? What is unfortunate for us is. that we have party rule 
not for the country's good, but simply for the good of the party. 
The rulers of the party have but one aim, one purpose in life, 
and that is to devise ways by which to get the people's votes, 
and through those votes finally to secure the spoils. History 
gives us no account of anything quite so wicked and so heartless 
as party rule in this country. To speak against the interests of 
the party to which a man belongs, is heresy, and to vote con- 
trary to the orders of those who control the machine, is sure to 
result in his downfall. Such an offence is never condoned. 
Religious zeal is not half so blind and so intolerant as party zeal. 
No man dares think outside of party limits. The bosses dictate 
the policy and lay down the platform of the party, and in that 
simple way they settle everything. There is no opportunity 
either for question or complaint on the part of the individual 
members of the part}". No better illustration could be found 
anywhere to show how the parts, or the individuals, are ab- 
sorbed in the whole than can be seen in the case of party or- 
ganization. 

Yet. in this country we continue to flatter ourselves that we 
at least have representatives. But how far do these men rep- 
resent us ? Do they make any laws just as we want them, or 
just as a thousand other men want them ? No, they do not in 
one single instance — they could not do so if they tried. Our 
representative might vote for a bill a hundred times, and still it 



REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 157 

might not pass. No. it is well known that laws are enacted in 
spite of legislators, while other measures fail even with all their 
assistance. Our own particular representative is only one out 
of a hundred, or out of five hundred perhaps. "What could any 
man do in such a case, were he ever so able or excellent in his 
way? The answer is. nothing. Our laws, those in which we 
are most concerned and which we are compelled to obey, are 
clearly not made in any case by our representative — if for no 
other reason, for this alone, that no one legislator ever makes 
laws. Laws are always made by the representatives of other 
men, not by ours, and those representatives do not even belong- 
to our part of the state or country. Or perhaps they are made 
by some one who is not a representative at all. and who does 
not even pretend to be one — some lawyer who prepares the bill, 
or some lobbyist who engineers its passage. 

To have a representative properly so called, the representa- 
tives for any locality should make the laws for that locality 
— in other words, we should have home rule — but as it is now. 
a member from Buffalo has as much to do with making laws 
for New York as the members from that city have. If the 
laws were actually made by our representatives, these men 
might with, some propriety be called our representatives, but it 
is well known that laws are not made in that way. Probably in 
all cases the men who actually make the laws are as much 
strangers to us as they would be if they resided in Siberia. 

But if. as we have seen. laws, even in a republican govern- 
ment, are not made by our representatives, but rather by those 
who are foreign to us. men who do not know our wants nor care 
for our wishes, what difference does it make to us who the men 
are who make the laws in which we are chiefly concerned? 
In any event, we must trust to luck and take our chances, and 
that is something that everybody is doing to-day in regard to 
legislation throughout the whole broad land. It would not be 
worse for us if the judge on the bench made the law as he went 
along, or the governor, the sheriff, the constable, as he really 



158 REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

does in many cases. It is well known that originally it was the 
custom of the executive, the king, or monarch, to make all the 
laws and select all the judges. He was the sole source of both 
law and justice. He ordered and was obeyed, he sat in judg- 
ment and his word was law. He was the sole fountain of light 
and truth. And probably there are as few evils under that 
system as there are under ours. The king had no more interest 
in robbing his subjects than our modern representative has — per- 
haps not so much. It makes not the slightest difference to us 
who or how many they are who make the laws for us, or who 
sit in judgment on our case, provided they are impartial, disin- 
terested, capable and honest men. That is all there is of the 
business any way. One man of that kind would do better for 
us than one hundred of the other kind, and where he resides or 
where he was born, is a matter that little concerns us. 

So, it is evident that I would place little trust in a represen- 
tative government. A government by one king is not apt to be 
so bad as a government by a hundred or more kings all differing 
in aims and interests, as well as in temperament and capacity, 
and all anxious to accumulate money. What difference does 
it make to me whether the one who does the ruling is called a 
sovereign, or merely a representative ? A king who is elected, 
it must be remembered, is as much the people's representative 
as the man whom we send to congress or place in the presiden- 
tial chair. 

Our laws, it must not be forgotten, are not usually made by 
the legislature. That body simply ratifies what has been decided 
upon somewhere else, or in some other way. Laws are uni- 
formity machine-made. Laws are made for, not by, the rep- 
resentative. His vote on the question is usually only a matter 
of form. Whether he votes with his ears and eyes open or shut, 
is a matter of very little consequence. , He is not presumed to 
vote understandingly, or to know much, if anything, about the 
provisions of the bill to which H he is called upon to give his 
assent. Sometimes a legislator, if he is of the right fiber and 



REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 159 

has the proper capacity, can be of some service to his constit- 
uents outside of the senate or assembly chamber, but when it 
comes to a vote, his yea or nay counts only one, just as the vote 
would of the humblest law-maker in the body. It is well known 
that men are sent as representatives to the capital not to deliber- 
ate and consult as to what is the best or the most proper thing 
to be done, but rather to make such bargains and enter into such 
combinations as may be found necessary in order to ensure the 
success of their undertaking. 

Again, as matters work under our system, and more or less 
so in all representative governments, how can we possibly call 
the representative who happens to be elected our representative ? 
Or how could any one call him his representative ? At the very 
best, we have only the privilege of making our choice between 
two or more men, neither of whom, perhaps, is the man we 
want. They are men who have secured a nomination, probably 
in some crooked or adroit manner, at some party caucus, and no 
matter whom we may prefer, the men who are nominated are 
the only ones whom we are permitted to consider. In ninety- 
nine cases out of a hundred the men who are called upon to 
vote have had absolutely nothing to do with the selection of 
those who appear as candidates for the office in question. Can- 
didates, it is well known, do not wait to be called. They call 
themselves. They secure their own nomination in some way, 
and that of itself, in more than half the cases, settles the whole 
business. Or, if the parties are nearly equally divided, a man 
may vote and vote again, and still have no real voice in the 
election. The man for whom he casts his ballot may lack a 
vote or two ; he may have only 1,000 votes, while his opponent 
has 1,001. In that case the one he did not want, and for whom 
he did not vote, is declared elected and becomes his representa- 
tive ! Strange, is it not ? The representative understands the 
matter in its true light. He knows that he owes the ordinary 
voter nothing, and so he feels under no obligation to him. In- 
stead of looking after the voter's interests at the seat of govern- 



160 REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

ment, and representing him, he looks after his own interests, 
and represents himself and his party. 

It is for reasons like these that I find a representative form 
of government extremely objectionable. It is not a representa- 
tive government in any true sense of the term. Certainly no 
particular individual is represented, nor is any particular part of 
the community from which the representative is supposed to be 
chosen. The mere privilege of voting for or against a man that 
we do not know and have never seen, some man. finally, that 
somebody else, and not ourselves, is certain to choose, or for one 
who actually chooses himself, is not a privilege npon which 
people should place any very high estimate. At least it is not 
a privilege that could compensate them for the burdensome 
taxes they must bear, or for the miseries they must suffer as the 
result of the many bad laws that are enacted. 

If the matter were left wholly to a town or community, 
tilings would be different. But there would be nnfairness and 
injustice even then. There always must be injustice whenever 
there is a question between two persons, for what is just to one 
must necessarily be unjust to the other. It is impossible that 
what is supposed to be just should work well for every man in 
the community. Generally, what benefits one man injures some 
other. But can anything be really just to a man that proves to 
be an injury or an affliction to him ? However, in small com- 
munities there will be less difference than in large ones, and 
hence there will be less dimculty and less injustice. The men in 
these small communities are usually all on one level, belong to 
one caste, have common interests and common sympathies, and 
therefore little trouble is found in agreeing upon a line of policy 
which is good for all concerned. I repeat again, there cannot 
be absolute and inflexible justice for all men. Men must 
sacrifice. They must suffer injustice. They must continue to 
do as they have done, they must often obey a law or a custom, 
even while it is not agreeable to them in all respects. Such is 
the fate of man in this life. I have only to add this remark, 

10 



THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 161 

that people may be better represented by an agent or an advocate 
than by one who is their representative properly so called. So 
it is in the case of colonies. They may send no one to parlia- 
ment in an official capacity, and still they may be better repre- 
sented than if they did so. There are other, and perhaps better 
ways of having people represented than by going through the 
ceremony of an election. It is not to be forgotten, moreover, 
that no man ca a properly represent more than one man. If he 
represents B, he could not also represent C — surely, not if they 
have opposing interests. What kind of a representative would 
that man be who represented a thousand or ten thousand men ? 
There can be no representation in any proper sense. The near- 
est thing to it is the European method by which there is the rep- 
resentation of guilds and classes. 

THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 

The doctrine that the king, the supreme ruler or sovereign, 
can do no wrong, is founded on reason and sound sense. Could 
God do wrong? If he could, he would not be God. To assume 
that God could do wrong, would imply that he was imperfect. 
It would also imply that there was some one above God who was 
qualified or authorized to judge of God's action. The one who 
judges is always supreme, and the one who is judged must be 
subject to his powers. But God is the supreme judge, and from 
his decisions there can be no appeal. His decisions cannot even 
be brought into question. 

To be authorized to pass judgment is the highest point that 
power can attain. We give our case into the hands of a judge 
solely on the ground that he is the proper one to decide, believ- 
ing that he knows what is right and proper and that he will 
judge according to his superior knowledge. So it must be with 
the king. So it must be with the Pope. A true pope must be 
infallible. To doubt that he is infallible, is to doubt that he is 
genuine. Like the king, he is God in the flesh, God as he is 



162 THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 

represented on earth. The true master can make no mistakes, 
because the master is always right. 

The one who is highest, who is above all and who makes 
the laws, is really the maker or founder of all right and justice. 
Why. to deny the infallibility of those who make the laws, is to 
undermine the whole foundation of government. If I must obey 
a master who is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, who is 
a drunkard perhaps, or a lunatic, a fool or a knave, my lot on 
earth is wretched indeed. How could such a being rightfully 
hold me bound under his authority and keep me helpless in his 
power? Such a being could not appeal to my reason : his sole 
argument would be brute force, which of course is no argument 
at all. 

It was the old English doctrine, less than one hundred 
years ago. as is well known, that the king could not do any 
wrong, and so it was that many an unfortunate man lost his 
life, or his liberty at least, by assuming to question the rightful- 
ness of the king's action, or by criticising his course in some 
way. To attempt to sit in judgment on the conduct of one 
whose power is supreme, is simply rebellion. To criticise gov- 
ernment is to oppose it. opposing government is treason, and 
treason means death. A king cannot be tried for any offence 
whatever,, for he has no peer, and there is no one above himself 
to act as judge. The only way to try a king is to reduce him to 
the level of a private citizen. So long as a king is king, he has 
all the power. How could judgment be enforced against one 
who is really a king ? When the people are supreme, how can 
they be tried or brought to account? It would be the height of 
arrogance to question the rightfulness of their decision. It 
would be equally absurd and useless to do so. 

The whole question comes up in another direction : whence 
comes the right of a man. or of any set of men. any two. ten or 
a dozen men that may happen to be chosen, to sit in judgment 
on the conduct or course of other men ? Or. what is the same 
thing precisely, whence comes the right of one man, or of any 



THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 163 

number of men. to set himself or themselves up as masters of 
other men? Xo man was ever born who possessed any such 
privilege or prerogative. The right to judge and the right to 
govern are two things that have never vet been inherited by any 
human being. 

If we go back and examine the earliest records of the hu- 
man family, we shall find that conquest with a view to slavery- 
is comparatively a recent development. In the earlier stages, of 
society, men are not held as slaves, and one man never meddles 
with the conduct of other men. except so far as he may be per- 
sonally concerned. They have wars, but they never take cap- 
tives, and hence they never have slaves. Captives are generally 
killed at once : it is only in rare cases that some captives are 
adopted as members of certain families in the conquering tribe. 
The farther back we go into the origin of society and govern- 
ment, the less do we see of kings, governors or masters. Sav- 
ages never obey the command of a superior — they acknowledge 
no superior. They have leaders, but not commanders. Their 
bravest and noblest men lead — the others simply follow. Sav- 
ages know of no discipline, for discipline is strictly a matter of 
authority. Neither do savages have trials in court. There is no 
one among them that assumes to be a judge over the rest. 
Slavery and lawsuits go together. A man who is tried and 
judged always has the place and the obligations of a slave. He 
is in the power of the court, and the court may do with him 
what it pleases. But no true freeman would endure such a 
state of things, and hence we can understand how it comes that 
courts and trials are matters of comparatively modern develop- 
ment. 

The conclusions thus far arrived at, in this article, are such 
as must inevitably follow, provided there is a God who is a 
supreme being, and provided there are certain men who are or 
may be masters or judges of other men. We have seen that 
God must be infallible and likewise not accountable for what 
he does. We have also seen that a man who is properly a 



164 THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 

judge, or really a master, must have his position and authority 
as such recognized without conditions. Such a master cannot 
be criticised, and the justness and propriety of his course should 
not be brought in question. Such a judge must be infallible, 
and his decisions should not be appealed from. But men now 
very generally deny the infallibility of rulers and judges, and 
the reason why they do so is because there is a growing ten- 
dency among all thinkers to deny the right of any man to rule 
over other men. The prevailing tendency is now to treat a 
ruler as a mere puppet or idol, to be taken down or set up at 
pleasure, which could not be done if he were a true master. Of 
course, if he were a master, with the power that belongs to a 
master, he would not allow himself to be taken down and set 
up at the pleasure of other men. 

Our governors and presidents, and even the so-called nion- 
archs of Europe, are now simply representatives of the people. 
All the power they have is delegated to them. They are merely 
agents, but an agent is only an instrument in the hands of other 
men. His position is that of a slave, and he has no more power 
than that which might be accorded to a slave. Such a monarch 
is held accountable for what he does ; he can be tried in court 
like ordinary men. But it must be clear enough to any mind 
that such a man is no monarch. He is destitute of power, and 
one that has no power cannot be a sovereign. And so it is with 
judges. A man is allowed to judge, but his decision is never 
recognized as final. The court merely gives its opinion, just as 
other men give theirs, but it is not a final judgment. The 
opinion is appealed from and carried from one court to another, 
being either affirmed or reversed, just as the appellant court 
takes a fancy. Even when the last court is reached, the decis- 
ion then may not be final, for the people may be in rebellion 
or in some other way they may reverse the decision. If 
the people really believed in the infallibility of judges, or 
in the divine right of kings, there would be no appeal, no re- 
sistance, no discussion, no rebelling. It is evident enough that 



THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 



165 



the people as a rule do not believe in any such thing. Judges, 
legislators and rulers are all held accountable for their acts, for 
the reason that they are looked upon as ordinary men, having 
all the weaknesses and the fallibility that characterize ordinary 
men. 

If a man has a right to rule, he is clearly entitled to have 
his authority recognized. If a man has a right to judge, his 
opinion cannot properly be re-judged or appealed from. The 
whole question turns upon the right to judge or the right to 
rule. Formerly this right of appeal was generally denied. 

A few words further upon the history and progress of this 
doctrine of infallibility. In Europe at the present day, espe- 
cially in England, the question is evaded by making the min- 
ister responsible for wrongs done, and not the monarch. If the 
ministers do wrong, they are deposed, while the monarch re- 
mains. In the United States such a course is not necessary, be- 
cause the question can be met when the officer comes up for 
re-election. On the continent of Europe they still hold to state 
infallibility. The state being the supreme power, it is seen that 
it cannot be held responsible for what it does. What the state 
does must be right, because the state is the one that determines 
wiiat is right. In other days, it is well known that the sov- 
ereign was held to be holy, godlike, and as such he was more or 
less worshiped as a god. The king always represented God ; 
in theory, he was sent by God to do a certain work. Why should 
he not be worshiped as divine ? To this it may be added that 
if a man has power over other men, or the right to exercise 
authority over them, he can get that power from no other 
source than God. 

Would a father be held responsible for the treatment of his 
children? Until recently he would not. Until recently there 
was no appeal from a father's decision. So far as his family 
was concerned, he was supreme. Among the Romans the 
father was infallible, and as to the fate of his children he was 
the sole judge. There was no appeal from his decision. He 



166 THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 

was the typical master and judge. A man who is accountable 
for what he does is not a master, and the father is not ac- 
countable for the treatment of his children because he is a mas- 
ter. 

When it is once conceded that authority is not well 
grounded, that it is in no sense divine, then it is seen that it is 
something that is wrong, and it soon weakens and finally fails. 
So it was with the right of the master over his slave, the father 
over his children, the husband over his wife. So long as there 
was no question as to their right to govern, they were deemed , 
in their proper spheres, omnipotent and infallible. It must be 
remembered that the slave and the subject originally had no 
more right than a horse or a fly now has. But eventually 
people began to question the authority of the master and his 
right to exercise power over others. From that time on the 
power of the master, and also of the father, began to wane, and 
it is waning still. 

The right to rule and the right to do as we please with 
another, leads to the destruction of all rights on the part of the 
subject, and to the absence of all justice in the treatment he 
receives. Justice and fairness are things that cannot be talked 
of as between the one governing and the one governed. Justice 
implies that even the weak have rights, and demands that their 
feelings and interests must be regarded. But the right of a 
man to be a master goes to the very bottom of every right that 
would naturally belong to those under him. The slave cannot 
talk about justice. Justice is only for free men. The slave is 
conscious of the fact that he has lost his will, or what is the 
the same, the power of using it, and so he has nothing to do 
but follow the direction of another. No justice can be found 
where such relations exist. Justice is something that prevails 
only between men who are equal in their rights. A king may 
be just as between one man and another, but as between 
himself and his subjects, justice is not a thing to be conceived 
of. Who would speak of God as being just ? God knows abso- 



THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 



167 



lutely nothing of such matters as justice, right and fairness. 
They are exclusively human affairs. To insist that a king should 
act justly, would be to limit him, hamper him, and being thus 
bound, he would not be a true king. A king merely consults 
his own will — he never thinks of justice. Hence we observe 
that in all governments which are really despotic, the subjects 
are true slaves. Even their lives are at the disposal of the 
monarch. And so it is in our modern state. The state owns its 
subjects, and may even demand their lives, as well as their 
property, when circumstances would seem to require the sac- 
rifice. If the king governs according to law, he is not really a 
king, unless he makes the laws himself. The law-making and 
law-enacting power is always the true sovereign. Under a true 
sovereign the people have no rights. Louis XIV. had the cor- 
rect idea of the matter. He said, in giving instructions to his 
son and heir : " All your subjects owe you their persons, their 
goods, their blood, without having the right to claim anything. " He 
added : ' ' The kings are absolute lords and have naturally the 
full and free disposition of all the goods which are possessed. " 
Louis was quite correct ; he carried the idea of sovereignty and 
state-rule to its legitimate consequences. So Elizabeth, of En- 
gland, believed that the state could do anything it chose to do ; 
it could take all the revenues and have charge of all trades and 
manufactures. What is true of kings, is of course also true of 
the state, and of the ruling power generally. 

When the state, or a monarch, makes laws and determines 
what is right and proper, that is not a matter between the state 
and the citizens, but between citizens and citizens, or one citizen 
and another. What is the use of raising the question whether 
the sovereign does right or wrong, when he has the absolute 
right to do as he pleases, and no one is able to oppose his 
action ? A true sovereign never binds or obligates himself with 
any restrictions or conditions. Does God do so, does a master 
or father? So far as he yields to conditions, so far he surren- 
ders his power. There can be no magna charta, no bill of rights, 



168 THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 

for any king, unless for one who like king John lias lost his power 
and is compelled to concede what others demand of him. The 
people never get charters, except when the one who pretends 
to be sovereign ceases to be such. That is a matter that history 
demonstrates over and over again. 

In old Rome appeals were little known, and in ancient Ger- 
many still less. We have appeals to-day, because we do not 
believe fully in judges and rulers. If we really believed in the 
right of one man to govern another, there would be no courts, 
no law-making, nothing at all to hamper or embarrass the gov- 
ernor or king. All these things are so many signs of the deca- 
dence of the ancisnt kingly idea. A real king knows no laws : 
laws tend to destroy sovereignty. Laws bind the people : they 
bind subjects, but they never bind kings — not real kings. 

Bluntschli speaks about the accountability of legislatures. 
He says that nowhere except in America is such a thing thought 
of or mentioned. And, really, how could there be accountability 
in such a case ? The law-maker is supreme, and if he is 
supreme, he cannot be held accountable for what he does, no 
matter how wicked his actions may prove to be. Can it be con- 
ceived of as possible that one who determines what is right and 
lawful should himself be guilty of wrong-doing ? This would be 
the same as saying that a man in doing what he has a right to 
do, does wrong. If the law-maker is not supreme, then cer- 
tainly he is not a maker of law properly considered. But in 
America they set the law-maker up, and then after a while they 
take him down again. Like the butterfly he is made only to 
flit and display himself for a very brief period, and then he is 
called away. In America the court is placed over the legisla- 
ture, so that the court has the power to give the final, finishing 
touch to all laws. Hence, the court in America is the last 
resort, the real sovereign. It settles everything, finally, accord- 
ing to its own judgment and preferences. But even the court 
is human. It cannot interpret the constitution solely as a mat- 
ter of intelligence, but feeling and prejudice must enter into its 



THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY. 169 

decisions. If it were not for diversity of interests, and perhaps 
of education and associations, the members of the court would 
never differ as to what is constitutional and what is not. It 
must not be forgotten that the members of courts are ordinary 
people, men of common flesh and bone, just such as we see in 
our walks every day. 

In America the constitution is above law and law-makers, 
and this shows that this country is opposed to all sovereignty 
on the part of either individuals or organized bodies. The pro- 
gramme is laid down beforehand for every American citizen — 
this he may do, and that he must not. Real sovereignty is not 
tolerated in any place or in any form — at least that is the 
theory. As soon as any signs of sovereignty appear in any 
quarter, in congress for instance, it is promptly suppressed. 

But if there is power, as there must be under any system of 
government, it must reside somewhere. There is no way of 
escaping that result. In England they tried the barons first and 
gave them the mastery ; then they tired of the barons and gave 
the power to the king, and finally they took it away from the 
king and gave it to the House of Commons. After a while they 
will be sure to try some other experiment. In this country the 
sovereignty is placed in a great many different hands, and in 
none of them in particular. The president has a share of the 
power, congress has some, the courts a great deal and the 
people a little of what is left. It is really a novel state of things 
and is not destined to last. 

THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY. 

Is it right that eight men should lay down the laws by 
which seven men shall be governed? What mysterious power 
or what remarkable qualification do the former possess that the 
latter do not have ? From whence do the eight derive the right 
by which they are to rule over seven ? Where did the idea ever 
originate that the majority could be made equal to the whole 



170 THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY. 

body, and that as such it could take its place and make laws 
in its name ? I have never yet heard these questions an- 
swered. Indeed, it is seldom that I have known such questions 
to be raised. In fact, people would no more think of questioning 
the right of the majority to rule than they would of denying 
the authenticity of the Scriptures. 

Yet what the majority does is not what the mass does, and 
what the one wills has nothing at all to do with what the other 
wills. The majority, so far from involving or absorbing the 
minority, proceeds entirely independent of it and ignores its 
existence entirely. That is the way the majority always gov- 
erns. So far from the whole body having a voice in the matter, 
its wishes are never consulted, and its rights and interests are 
always trampled under foot. In fact, under our present system, 
where numbers alone count, the existence of a whole is ignored, 
and all the questions that come up are those which are to be 
settled between the majority on one side and the minority on 
the other. The number fifteen is of no consequence. It is the 
eight to seven that always determines the result. 

What the majority decides is not what the minority decides, 
and therefore the latter cannot be bound by the former's action. 
The eight and the seven are as distinct from each other and as 
independent as any two groups possibly could be. Indeed, the 
idea of their belonging to one and the same group is something 
entirely imaginary. There is nothing reasonable or just in 
one man's exercising authority over another ; and the case is 
not bettered at all by eight men undertaking to control the 
action of seven men. There never was a more astounding fraud 
perpetrated upon mankind than that which is found in the mon- 
strous pretensions of those who claim to be the majority ! All 
that the whole business amounts to, as we shall find when we 
examine it in its entirety, is that one set of men seek to rule 
over another set of men by mere force of numbers 

An election is simply a contrivance by which heads or noses 
may be counted, but it determines nothing, proves nothing, so 



THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY. 



171 



far as truth and justice are concerned. An election indicates 
what the majority want, or what the few who control the 
majority want, and what the minority may want is something 
that is discarded as a matter of no moment. If the minority 
did not vote at all, the result would not be different. What 
good does it do men to vote and declare their wishes, when no 
attention at all is paid to their preferences ? But that is some- 
thing that happens to every man who finds himself in the mi- 
nority. 

The rule that eight should control seven, is one that is en- 
tirely arbitrary. That is not necessarily the proportion which 
is to govern in all cases. Sometimes it is four to two, or per- 
haps eight to four. There is no reason in the world why the 
rule might not as well be established that seven should control 
eight, so far as the mere question of right is concerned. In 
fact it very often occurs that the seven, being adroit men, 
really govern the eight, who are not so adroit. Sometimes even 
one man rules eight, either from the peculiar circumstances of 
the case or his own superior tact or power. 

I have spoken of an election already as a contrivance, but it 
is more than that. It is a game whereat many men play, and 
at which some lose, while others win. In this game the minor- 
ity are the ones that are beaten — they never beat themselves, 
they are beaten by their antagonists, though the claim is usu- 
ally made that they beat themselves. A man's case is not bet- 
tered in the least because he was allowed to play. That was 
only for appearance sake. He would have been beaten just the 
same if he had not played, or had not voted. The majority 
always have their way at all hazards ; that is the sort of divine 
right that the majority pretends to have, and with which it 
uniformly imposes upon the minority. No man has his way 
simply because he has been allowed to vote. His voting has 
absolutely nothing to do with his rights. But if a man really 
has rights, the voting of ten thousand other men can never de- 
prive him of those rights. 



172 THE RtLE OF THE MAJORITY. 

An election is a contest or a trial which makes neither side 
any stronger or better than it was, and it never alters the facts 
of the case in the least. It is only an experiment or investiga- 
tion, a form to be used for appearance sake. The majority being 
the stronger party mean to have their own wishes carried out. 
and they go through with the forms of an election merely to 
have the minority ratify what they are determined to have 
done. That is all there is of an election. Elections prove noth- 
ing, alter nothing. In that respect they are like a trial at court. 
"We risk our lives and our liberties on the result of an election, 
but we might just as well risk them on a throw of dice, for one 
is just as certain as the other. If the result of an election was 
not uncertain, there would be no need of having an election to 
ascertain that result. When we consent to be governed by the 
result of a count, we always put ourselves in the hands of 
chance. We practically abandon our case. We are not com- 
pelled to do it — we do it because we choose to do it. or think it 
necessary to do it. but when we consent to it. we throw right 
and propriety to the winds. Right and propriety are not things 
to be voted on — they are questions to be settled in some other 
way. They are questions that each man must settle for himself 
and they cannot be settled by proxy. No amount of voting can 
ever make a wrong right, or a right wrong. It has often been 
tried, but it has never yet been accomplis'hed. 

A thing is either right or wrong, and if it is right or wrong 
for one. it ought to be equally right or wrong for all. Voting 
can neither make or unmake rights. How many there are who 
believe on one side and how many on the other, has nothing to 
do with the right or wrong of the question. I think no one 
pretends that there is necessarily anything right in the views of 
a majority. History has shown that majorities are more apt to 
be wrong than the minority. Ten thousand simpletons are 
never, in wisdom, the equal of one wise man. In fact ten thous- 
and simpletons, all being of the same caliber, know not a whit 
more than one simpleton. I repeat the intimation thrown 



THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY. 



173 



out often before, that numbers never change character. Ten 
thousand pennies have some characteristics that one penny does 
not have, but they can never be anything but ten thousand 
pennies. There is not one of them that has the slightest in- 
crease of value from the simple fact of its being one of ten 
thousand. But people on the matter of voting seem to have a 
different idea. They imagine that if a hundred men think so 
and so, it makes a stronger case than if only ninety-five think 
so. But if I make an assertion and a thousand men agree with 
me, that by no means proves that I am right. No. an election 
is merely a sort of compromise, a matter of expediency or neces- 
sity, and no man can maintain that it ever determines what is 
right or what is wrong. 

It should not be forgotten, in conclusion, that allowing the 
majority to decide is not the only way of settling questions. 
It is only one among many ways, and is comparatively a mod- 
ern practice. In some cases a two-thirds or a three-fourths vote 
is required, and some other proportion would be just as cor- 
rect and would answer just as well. In many cases, as among 
the Russians in their village government, a unanimous vote is 
required, and in other countries such a thing as a comparison of 
voices or a counting of heads is never heard of. 

There is -no tyranny equal to that of a majority. One man 
is generally careful what he does, because he knows he will be 
held responsible for his deeds. But a body of men is entirely 
irresponsible, and therefore always does as it pleases. In prac- 
tice, what is called the democratic form of government is the 
most despotic form known. 

"Where the majority rules, or where the party rules, it 
is the height of nonsense to talk about the people ruling as a 
body. There never was such a thing ; there could be no such 
thing. When we come to analyze the matter fully, we shall 
find that one set of men rule another set of men. There can be 
no other kind of rule — no man, no people rule themselves. 
W T ith us, the caucus consisting of a few men does the whole 



174 



POLITICS AND PARTY RULE. 



business, while a boss, like Senator Piatt or Senator Hill, sends 
out his orders and controls the caucus. 

POLITICS AND PARTY RULE. 

In a democracy like ours, where all questions of state 
management and state policy are settled ultimately by the 
ballot, government degenerates into a matter of mere party rule. 
Under such a condition of things, men are counted not in ac- 
cordance with their moral or intellectual worth, but rather in 
proportion to their influence and the number of votes they 
happen to control. No one pretends that any questions which 
are even remotely connected with politics are settled exclusively 
upon their merits, or that men are either elected to office or 
favored in any way on the simple ground that they are deserving 
of honor or worthy of confidence. In elections, the issue is 
decided by a mere mechanical process of counting, and it be- 
comes not a question of right or wrong, but merely a matter of 
enumeration. If the number happens to be 20, the result is one 
way ; but if it happens to be 21, then the result is just the op- 
posite. It is well known that the ballots, when they are counted, 
are not a measure of the judgment, experience, intelligence or 
even of the integrity of those who have voted. It is very well 
understood that, at our most important elections, many people 
vote who are wanting in all the best elements of manhood. 
They are often men who are not noted in the community in 
which they live either for sound judgment, large experience, or 
even for common honesty. As a rule electors vote in droves. 
They often vote under orders, often under a misconception of 
facts, often without any knowledge of the subject under con- 
sideration, and still oftener without any serious convictions of 
their own or any concern about the result. They frequently 
vote for the pay they receive or the benefits they expect, and 
their choice between candidates or measures is governed solely 
by what they conceive to be their own personal interest. Per- 



POLITICS AND PARTY RULE. 



175 



haps such things must be expected under a democratic form of 
government, but what could be more unworthy or unjust ? No 
question could ever be settled upon a basis of fairness and right 
in that way. It is, as we have said before, wholly a matter of 
figures. Legal forms and rules are observed, it is true, but of 
what avail is this, when legal forms and rules can always be 
altered to suit the interests or fancy of those who are in power ? 

We are not able to conceive of anything so dishonest or so 
destitute of principle as political management or party rule as it 
prevails at the present day. Neither party makes any preten- 
sions to being fair and honorable in its action. It is an estab- 
lished rule upon which all parties act, that everything is fair in 
politics, as in war, and that to be successful is always better than 
to be right. Their constant aim is to deceive the people, and 
always to seem better than they really are. During a canvass 
all parties keep themselves disguised as if they were acting a 
part at a masquerade. The moment a party succeeds and is 
placed in power, the mask suddenly falls, and then for the first 
the country begins to understand what it has done, and it is en- 
abled to perceive the character of the men into whose hands it 
has fallen. During the canvass, the rallying cry heard on all 
sides is, " the good of the country," but after election is over, it 
is soon ascertained that what was meant by ' ' good of the coun- 
try," was really " the good of the party," and generally of only a 
very small portion of the party at that. 

No form or phase of human nature can give such an exhibi- 
tion of unalloyed selfishness as a political party. A party, any 
party, will do meaner things and get down to lower depths of 
corruption and infamy than any individual alone would ever 
dare to do. We see this fact exemplified in New York city, at 
our state capital, and in all places where spoils can be reached, 
and where men find they can get rich more rapidly by foul than 
by fair means. We saw the selfishness of party exemplified in 
the war of 1812, when the Federalists favored the British, with 
whom our country was at war at that time ; also in 1846, when 



176 



POLITICS AND PARTY RULE. 



the Whigs sympathized with Mexico, and practically opposed 
their own government in its war with that country ; and again in 
1861, when the Democrats as a party were opposed to the war 
with the South, and did much, in the earlier stages of the con- 
test at least, to render victory on the side of the Union a matter 
of very grave doubt. Even in the war of the Revolution there 
was a party opposed to Washington, and it did all that was possi- 
ble to embarrass the commanding general in his efforts to secure 
the final independence of the American colonies. It has often 
happened in the past, and it will doubtless often happen in the 
future, that a party not in power would rejoice at a defeat in 
war that would bring ruin upon its country, for no other reason 
than that a victory would result in some material advantage to 
an opposing party. Alas ! where shall we find villainy mani- 
festing itself in darker hues than in the management and 
maneuvers of a political party? What did the Republicans of 
the nation do in 1876, and the Democrats of New York in 1891 ? 

How can we talk about liberty, equality, justice and proper 
representation under any form of government, where every- 
thing is controlled by party, and where the sole aim of the lead- 
ers of the party is the spoils ? What shall we expect where the 
welfare of the public, and even the much talked of ' ' greatest 
good to the greatest number " is lost sight of, where decency and 
fair dealing are ignored, where all that is manly and magnani- 
mous is trampled in the dust and where people lose their heads, 
as well as their character, in the mad scramble for office ? 

Politics, especially under a form of government where 
everything is decided by the ballot, leads to the development of 
the very worst characteristics of which human nature is suscep- 
tible. Its chief stock in trade is vilification and misrepresenta- 
tion. Everything that is done by one party is assumed to be 
right, while that which is done by the opposing party is pre- 
sumed to be wrong. The party managers and their agents spare 
no efforts that might serve to blacken the name of their antag- 
onists, or that might tend to bring them into disrepute with the 

11 



POLITICS AND PARTY RULE. 177 

people. Politics is largely a game of trickery, treachery and 
deceit, and the most persevering schemer, if not the most un- 
principled rascal, is the one most apt to succeed, at least for 
the time being. It is no wonder that good men by the hun- 
dreds refuse to come out on election day. preferring to be dis- 
franchised rather than to soil their garments by coming in con- 
tact with some men that they are certain to meet at the polls. 
If they went, they would be sure to find the front seats all 
taken ; they would find themselves crowded to the rear, while 
boodlers and professional politicians, would be left sitting in 
high places. These, the boodlers and the politicians, are the 
men who own. control and run the machinery by which out- 
laws are made, by which the destiny of men is settled, and in 
harmony with which ail the departments of the state are man- 
aged. 

2s o. there is not a tinge of honesty, fairness or principle in 
politics as conducted in this country. Even the laws, as every- 
body concedes, are usually the result of a compromise — but it is 
well known that where the spirit of compromise prevails, there 
principle is thrown to the winds. Compromise is always unfair 
to one party or the other. Compromise is the argument of 
rogues. 

THE STATE IX FACT. 

The first thing to be done in entering upon the considera- 
tion of this subject, is to obtain a clear idea of what the state 
is. and ascertain if possible who they are that compose the state. 
When we have reached that point, we shall be better able to 
decide what homage or service men owe the state, and what it 
is, if anything, that the state owes them in return. 

Who is the state ? Where is the state ? Is there really any- 
where any such thing as the state? Is it not largely, if not 
wholly, a fiction? Where, for instance, shall we be able to find 
the state of New York ? It is not the land that is the state ; it 
must be the people who occupy the land. The land remains 



178 THE STATE IN FACT. 

while the state changes. The land now embraced within the 
limits of New York has been where it is for thousands of years, 
but it has not been known as the territory or state of New 
York for much over 200 years. No, the land is in no sense the 
state, and it should not be called the state any more than the 
house in which a family lives should be called the family. As 
Bluntschli says: "The man is the state." Those who act as 
proxy for the state, who wear the garb and bear the shield of 
the state, the men who call themselves the state and act for the 
state, are simply a set of individuals who reside at the capital, 
or who are scattered about in various places, taking charge of 
this or that department, collecting the money which the people 
are forced to pay, and finally disbursing the same, or using it 
for their own personal benefit. These are the men who, for the 
time being, are the state. 

Is there any other state than these men who pride them- 
selves on being officers of the state, but who are after all made 
of just such flesh and bone as the ordinary run of men — no 
worse than other men. perhaps, and probably no better ? Who 
else is it that constitutes the town or the county, or any society 
or group whatever? Really, the state is a shadow— and, to a 
large extent, it is a sham. It does not perform what it ad- 
vertises. It is not what it seems ; it does not possess the char- 
acter that it pretends to have. But the men who represent the 
state and who live upon its pay and perquisites, these are real, 
live men, who must subsist like other people, and who must 
like other people eat food and wear clothes. 

Perhaps we may get a better idea of what a state or govern- 
ment really is by considering the condition of things as it 
existed during the war against the southern confederacy. Was 
that war actually a struggle between the government on one 
side and the South on the other? That was the pretence that 
the northern people made, and that is the face that they tried 
to present to the world, but it has no foundation in fact. They 
claimed to be the whole government, though it must now be 



THE STATE IN FACT. 



179 



acknowledged that in truth they were only a part of the govern- 
ment, which is the same thing as admitting that they were not 
the government at all. We all know it was not a struggle be- 
tween the government and some other party, but merely a 
struggle between the seceding states and the balance of the 
union, two sections as independent of each other as England 
and Ireland, or Sweden and Norway. This contest typifies the 
contest in all cases where the fiction of the government or nation 
is brought into consideration. The work that is done in the 
conflicts of this world is never done by whole groups, whole 
nations, or whole states. The movement, as in the case of the 
war that we have just noticed, is always started by a few, and 
is carried forward by one section of the people, without regard 
to the feelings or wishes of the remaining faction, which is 
forced by superior strength to submit and go along with the 
current. 

Unfortunately, mankind have always had very vague and 
imperfect ideas of what constitutes a state. Designing men 
have from time to time been at the head of the state, and hav- 
ing charge of its affairs, they have succeeded admirably in de- 
luding the masses and making them believe that the state is 
something divine, rather than human. It is in this way that 
people, in all ages, down to the present time, have been induced 
to worship the state. The state is like the king, it can do no 
wrong. Hence it is that it never admits its responsibility for 
any injury that it occasions. Whatever the state does is right, 
because it is the strongest party. The state is strength in the 
concrete. The state does a vast deal of wrong in a year, to say 
nothing of what it does in a hundred years, but it rarely or 
never apologizes for the damage it occasions. To individuals 
it never does so, and to nations it only does so when it is 
fearful of the consequences of refusal. The state thinks it 
nothing out of the way to ruin a man's business, as it often 
does, by enacting some new law or abolishing an old one. The 
state builds up and the state tears down, always, be it remem- 



180 THE STATE IN FACT. 

bered, in accordance with its own sweet will. The state may 
do anything it pleases. It may send a man to prison, or it may 
strangle him to death,, with no higher motive for its action 
than to save itself a little inconvenience or prevent the loss of 
some advantage. The state claims absolute ownership, or at 
least prior title, to all the land in the country. According to 
the theory on which the state is founded, the people are only 
tenants at will, or perhaps serfs attached to the soil. Why. 
they have not a single element of freedom left to them when it 
comes to a question of right or authority as between them and 
the state. To resist the state, even when the individual is 
clearly in the right, is treason, and treason, as eveiybody 
knows, is a dreadful thing. In such a case, there is no appeal 
to any tribunal save God, and an appeal of that kind is always 
accompanied with a great many difficulties. There is no pro- 
vision made in any state that we have ever heard of for resist- 
ance by the individual against any action taken by the state, no 
matter how monstrous it may be in character. The state always 
has what seems to itself a valid excuse for any rascally piece of 
work that it chooses to perform. The stereotyped justification 
is, "the public good." And, indeed, how many wicked things 
have been done already in the name of public good"! It is 
a false and deceiving term, often used to conceal the vilest 
motives of the men who manage the affairs of the state. I am 
disgusted with the exaggerated demands made on behalf of the 
public upon individuals who are so unfortunate as to belong to 
the state. As if it were the duty of the individual to make all 
the sacrifices, and the state none ! Is not the individual's life, 
comfort and health as dear to him as life, health and comfort 
are to a hundred or a million of other men ? And then it must 
not be forgotten that the sacrifices demanded from individuals 
by the state are never made for the whole public, but only for a 
certain portion of the public. In every instance where men 
talk about the good of the public, it will be found on careful 
examination that what they really mean is only the good of a 



THE STATE IX FACT. 



181 



favored portion of the public. So it is in the case of building 
highways, or widening streets, or laying out railroads, and all 
other so-called improvements. The expense is borne and the 
sacrifices are made by one portion of the people, while the 
benefits are enjoyed chiefly by another portion. There never 
was a law or regulation made by any state that did not in its 
effects injure some, while it benefited others. No such law 
could possibly be devised. But if the facts are such as have 
just been stated, on what fair and just ground can we insist 
that any man shall be compelled to sacrifice himself or his 
property to gratify or to benefit ten or a hundred other men who 
are no better, perhaps, than himself? Such a forced sacrifice as 
that could never be justified on any principles of justice or 
truth. "What, then, becomes of the claims of the state upon the 
life or property of individuals ? 

Again, I urge that men should make no mistake in their 
estimates and conceptions of the state. They should not allow 
themselves to be deceived by the pomp, splendor and lofty pre- 
tensions of power. Louis XIV. was entirel}- right when he said : 
" I am the state. " He was the state, and there was no state 
but him, at that time, in France. He possessed all the power, 
and whoever has all the power, or at least the preponderance of 
power, is always, for the time being, the state. Whoever makes 
laws and measures out justice, is always the state. William 
the Conqueror, after he had won the battle of Hastings, became 
the state for England. Before that event, King Harold was the 
state, 

But these men who are the state, these kings, these con- 
querors, these leaders, these ministers, who and what are they ? 
Divested of their robes and emblems of office, they are at best 
mere men, and as often happens, they are very corrupt, very 
wicked, and sometimes very weak men. They are usually sel- 
fish men, intriguing people, designing creatures, and unscrupu- 
lous and ambitious persons. What just claims can they have 
upon the homage or adoration of men? By what right shall 



182 THE STATE IN FACT. 

they demand sacrifices from the people ? I am not able to see 
that they have any right, except so far as the homage is ren- 
dered or the sacrifices are made by men of their own free will. 

And now. further, if the state proves to be what we have 
claimed it is ; if what has been assumed to be the state is only 
a portion of the state : if the claims that are made upon our 
service and homage in the name of the state, are really made by 
men just like ourselves, by men. finally, who have no claims at 
all upon our submission or obedience, and who can present no 
single argument in their behalf except that which comes from 
numbers and position, why should we bow down like slaves be- 
fore the state and allow ourselves to be transformed into bonds- 
men who have no other use and office than to labor for other 
people and pay tribute to men who have no occasion to toil for 
themselves, but who make a business of reaping where others 
have sown ? 

What sound argument can be advanced, what justification 
can be offered for the claim that is usually insisted upon that 
these same ordinary men who happen to have the reins of gov- 
ernment in their hands shall practically own the balance of the 
people of the state, and have at their command and disposal the 
lives and property of their fellow men ? This claim is never 
based on their superior wisdom or on their exalted character. 
Indeed, those who have the power and are in a position to take 
charge of the affairs of the state, never stop to reason the matter 
or discuss the question of right. They simply order and must 
be obeyed. As God said at the beginning of creation, " Let there 
be light, and there was light "—that is all there is of it. The 
story is very short in all such cases. 

But the moment a man with ordinary intelligence stops to 
examine this subject and apply the most common principles of 
reason to the question, he must inevitably come to the con- 
clusion that the state comes into court without any case at all. 
It has nothing to support itself in the position it assumes except 
its own presumption and audacity. No man owes anything to 



THE STATE LN" FACT. 183" 

the state or anything to the public. He may make sacrifices for 
the state, or sacrifices for the public, he may give to either or 
to both his labor and his means, but if he does, it is only be- 
cause he chooses, and not as a matter of compulsion. The 
doctrine should never for a moment be admitted that the state 
may act as our censor, our patron, our protector, our instructor 
or our master. Every man should be left to take that course 
which he prefers, and to do as he likes, and then he should be 
left to meet the consequences of his action. If a man chooses 
to make a fool of himself,, that is a privilege of which he can- 
not justly be deprived. If he does not always act with what 
we would consider sound judgment, that is his misfortune. 
Men owe obedience and submission to no one under heaven, 
whether he comes in the name of the state or with some other 
unfounded pretence. Men should not only be permitted but en- 
couraged to act upon their own judgment and depend upon 
their own exertions. They might consult with wiser men than 
themselves, but they should not be compelled to follow the ad- 
vice after it is given. Xo man should be forced to do anything, 
which means simply that no man should be punished for doing 
what others do not happen to want done. The only punishment 
men should ever receive should be the evil consequences of their 
own misconduct. 

One fact cannot be too well understood and too carefully re- 
membered, and that is that no dealings, no transactions, no 
questions that come up in life, are ever really between men and 
the state, but they are always between one set of men. and 
another set of men, either men as individuals or men claiming 
to represent the government — always, be it not forgotten, sim- 
ply ordinary men. We should do for the state what we should 
do for individuals, no more and no less. In dealing with men. 
we are allowed to consult our own judgment, even our own 
fancy. "We are permitted to do or not to do. as we see fit. So 
it should always be in matters of state. There should be no 
attempt at compulsion, and no effort to dictate our action. 



184 THE STATE IN FACT. 

Whoever undertakes to compel us to do anything, wrongs us — 
always wrongs us. God never gave any such authority to any 
human being. At least there has been no evidence given yet 
that God ever attempted to delegate such power to man. But, 
as it is now, the state treats all men as if they were children or 
simple people who need guidance and protection like way- 
ward orphans. The reasons for such assumptions of authority 
are always selfish ones. Officers of the state do not take the 
masses under their care and direction simply to confer some 
lasting benefit upon them, but to provide easy places for them- 
selves and furnish an opportunity to amass riches without either 
danger or fatigue. 

There is no evidence anywhere that the affairs of men move 
along more smoothly or successfully because of the interference 
of the state in all their doings. There is no evidence that or- 
dinary men are not as well able to conduct their own business 
for themselves as other ordinary men are for them. It is well 
to bear in mind that the state interposes not because it can do 
things better, but because such interference is assumed to be its 
privilege. It is customary, and what is customary, it is claimed, 
ought not to be changed. Previous custom is all the ground 
that the state has to stand on in all this business. But it is well 
known that even custom ought to be changed after a time. 

The main argument which the state puts forward to justify 
its interference in the affairs of individuals, is found in the 
word "protection." It assumes that men are in the need of 
protection, and it affects the part of the big boy who keeps off the 
hears and robbers and prevents thoughtless children from hurt- 
ing each other. There was a time, a long while since, when this 
argument may have had some force and a better application than 
it has now. There was a time when war was the rule and peace 
the exception. Then everybody had to keep himself on a war 
footing, and it often happened that in order to be secure against 
attack, a man was compelled to ally himself with a stronger 
party. But it must not be forgotten that in all cases where a 



THE STATE IN FACT. 



185 



man goes to another man for protection or assistance, he puts 
himself, to a greater or less extent, in the power of his ally, and 
it very often happens that he loses his liberty by the experi- 
ment. The doves in the fable found themselves in a much 
worse plight by calling in the aid of the hawk. The English 
lost their liberty by appealing to the Saxons, their neighbors. 
How many times has it happened in the business affairs of this 
world that a man mortgages his property to one whom he be- 
lieves to be his friend, in order to escape some danger, and 
finally loses it all and becomes the slave of his protector ! And 
so it is in the history of the state. Under pretence of doing this 
and that thing for the protection and comfort of the citizen, the 
state comes at last to have the citizen absolutely in its power. 
As times and practices are now, there is little occasion to call 
for assistance from any outside sources. The occupations of all 
civilized people now are those of peace rather than war. A man 
who attends to his own affairs and respects the rights of others 
need have no apprehension of attack from some stronger party. 

And few people are aware how little the state really does 
for the protection or security of citizens. Indeed, the state does 
not guarantee that it will keep them from injury, but that it 
will punish the offender if it succeeds in apprehending him. 
In too many cases this if is fatal, and even when the culprit is 
caught and punished, that fact can do little of itself toward 
alleviating the sufferings of the victim. Everybody understands 
that he must look out for his own safety and protect himself, 
if he is protected at all. If he waited for the state to do this 
work for him, he would find himself in a very sorry plight in 
nine cases out of ten. Generally, where the state is needed, it 
is rarely found, and even in the few instances where it does 
appear, it is too slow in getting around. A man might rob and 
kill another in a hundred cases, and every time escape before 
the state or its officers would learn of any disturbance. 

It is a mistake to imagine that the business of governing is 
so intricate and peculiar that it must necessarily be accorded to 



186 THE STATE IN FACT. 

a certain privileged and experienced class. Government, or 
control of a man's conduct, is something that every man should 
learn for himself. It is one of the things that cannot be well 
done by proxy. It is clear that the state has no definite notions 
as to what a man may properly do for himself and what the 
state should necessarily do for him. There has never been even 
to this day any perceptible line drawn in this matter. In a 
large portion of the common affairs of life, all men are allowed 
to follow the dictates of their own judgment. In other words, 
they are allowed to shift for themselves. Indeed, the state 
tacitly admits that as a protector of individuals it is more or 
less of a failure, for it concedes to men the right of self-defence, 
and in many cases it allows them to fight their way out in any 
way they deem best. Is it not clear that if a man is capable of 
managing a part of his affairs, he is probably able to manage the 
balance, and that if he can defend himself in one case, he 
doubtless could manage to defend himself in another ? How 
many hundreds, and even thousands of instances are there 
where men are permitted to conduct their affairs as if they were 
sovereigns, without the least help and the least intercession 
from either the law or the state ! But if a man may be a sov- 
ereign in many things, why not in all things, at least in all those 
things in which his personal interests are alone concerned ? 

Why does the state continually meddle or interfere in the 
affairs of men ? No man needs government. He may need in- 
struction, advice, or even caution, but governing never does 
him any good. And yet the state constantly acts upon the 
theory that every man not an officer of the state must be non 
compos, and as such he needs guidance and control. The poor, 
helpless individual is kept perpetually on the rack of uncer- 
tainty. Truly, he may say that he does not know what a day 
will bring forth. He may know what the stats will demand of 
him to-day, but he could not possibly tell what the state might 
determine to call for to-morrow. A man may be doing a pros- 
perous businesss to-day, and by some new step taken by the 



THE STATE IN FACT. 



187 



state, or some new law passed by the legislature, he may find 
himself a bankrupt to-morrow. It is not certainty, but uncer- 
tainty that torments the men who live under the iron rule of 
the state. A man is in a lamentable condition when every 
movement that he makes is subject to the arbitrary will of a 
despot. The citizen begs for nothing but to be let alone, but 
alas ! that would be impossible. A man might fly to the utter- 
most parts of the earth, and even there he would find himself 
the subject of some government. 

It must not be forgotten that the ways and tendencies of 
the state and its agents are strictly those of the robber and ex- 
tortionist. Government officers are parasites ; they fasten 
upon the people and suck the blood from their veins. That is 
the chief duty which they are called upon to perform. No man 
who represents the government, from the king down, is a pro- 
ducer. He is a vampire who lives by what he extracts from 
other creatures. The state gets what it can by deception or persua- 
sion first, and the balance it secures by compulsion afterward. 
The state is the stronger party, and when its screws come 
to be applied to a victim, he has no alternative but to yield, as 
he uniformly does. When the unarmed traveler is met by the 
robber, and it is a question whether he had better sacrifice his 
life or lose his purse, he is usually sensible enough to let the 
purse go and preserve his life. But unlike the ordinary robber, 
the state does not take all it can find. It reserves the victim for 
future use. It knows better than to kill the bird that lays the 
golden egg. The citizen is permitted to live and go on accumu- 
lating more property, and by and by the state comes along 
quietly and makes another reprisal. That is just how it has 
been done, in every civilized land where such a thing as gov- 
ernment exists. 

It is often claimed that men owe submission to government 
because there is an implied contract on their part to obey all 
laws and all officers of the law. But there is really no founda- 
tion for such a claim as that. A man conies into the world 



188 THE STATE IN FACT. 

and becomes a subject of a certain state without his will. He 
remains where he is, simply because he has no other place 
whither he may go. He obeys because he must ; his sub- 
mission in all cases is a matter of necessity from which he can- 
not escape. I venture to say that no government was ever 
formed by contract or agreement. A constitution bears the 
semblance of a contract, but it is always the work of a few 
men, generally without any legal and binding authority, and it 
certainly could not obligate future generations who had no part 
in framing the constitution. The theory that the subjects of a 
state are bound by some implied contract which they are sup- 
posed to have made with the government, is now generally 
abandoned. 

In concluding this article, I would remark that nations 
have dealings with each other, and they get along year after 
year in a very neighborly way, without laws, without a writ- 
ten constitution, without legislatures and without either gov- 
ernors or kings. They cannot be bound by laws, for they are 
all sovereigns, and smaller states and the larger ones are alike 
supreme. No one assumes or presumes to exercise the slightest 
authority over the other, and still we see that they get along 
well together for a long series of years. They have long since 
learned both the necessity and the propriety of doing right by 
each other. Whenever any question arises, and the two parties 
differ in their opinions, as parties with opposing interests 
naturally will, they leave the question to arbitrators, and abide 
by their decision when it is rendered. Now, why may not men 
as neighbors and friends do precisely the same thing ? Why 
should they be subject to laws which they themselves never 
made ? Why should they be treated as subjects, as slaves ? 
Why are not they sovereigns, why is not every man a sovereign, 
owing allegiance or submission to no man under heaven ? 



THE STATE AND ITS POWER. 



189 



THE STATE AND ITS POWER. 

It is generally assumed that all the state has to do, when it 
really wants anything done or anything omitted, is to have a 
law passed, and that settles the business. But careful observers 
and men who reflect upon what they have learned, know better 
than all this. When it comes to something that power alone 
can do, the state is as helpless as an infant. Indeed the state 
at all times is a fine example of how little power or force of 
itself can accomplish, when power or force is the only thing to 
depend on. The state passes a law or gives an order, and then 
it is left for the people to say whether they will obey or not. 
Have there not been thousands of cases in the history of this 
world where laws could not be enforced, even when backed 
by all the power of an empire? To give any law a value, it 
must be enforced ; the mere enactment of a law and spreading 
it out on the statute book never harms or helps anybody. It is 
only when an attempt is made to enforce the order that the 
question comes up in a tangible shape. The men who pass laws 
never enforce them. For that part of the business, a new set 
of men is required and they can proceed or not proceed just as 
they like ; and if they do proceed, they can take whichever 
way they like and go as far as they choose. The enforcement of 
a law or an order depends wholly upon the will of man, and 
the will of man is something that no power on earth, or in the 
heavens over the earth, can control even for a single moment. 
Hence, I say, the strongest government in the world is power- 
less from the moment when its people refuse to obey. 

Men delight to talk about the power of the state, as they do 
about the power of God — in fact it very often occurs that one is 
confounded with the other — and yet we know very well that 
there is no God that has any power, in the sense that is com- 
monly understood when the term power is used. There is no 
God that is able to make black white, or seventy-five cents equal 



190 



THE STATE AND ITS POWER. 



to one hundred cents, or to change the course of events or the 
laws of nature, in a single respect. So it is with the state — it 
cannot create anything, it cannot destroy anything, it cannot 
metamorphose anything. God can do what nature permits — so 
can the state, so can anybody — but that is no evidence of real 
power. Nature will do what is to be done without God's help 
or without the help of the state. 

Yes, the state can do a few things — it can obstruct, em- 
barrass, delay, confuse, but that is about all. It can dam a 
stream and prevent it from flowing in its natural course — any 
set of men could do that much — but it cannot change the nature 
of water, nor prevent it, even for one moment, from obeying its 
natural tendency to seek a lower level in some direction. If the 
water cannot flow on in its own channel, it is certain after a 
brief delay to find a new channel somewhere else. Just so it 
comes to pass when the state interferes with the affairs of in- 
dividuals. It may obstruct their passage and prevent them 
from doing just as they otherwise would, but it cannot alter 
their disposition nor can it prevent them from manifesting that 
disposition in some new and perhaps more dangerous manner. 
The state cannot do anything that in the nature of things is 
impossible. It cannot prevent men from drinking ; it cannot 
stop crime ; it cannot even check prostitution to any appreci- 
able extent. The state cannot make people honest ; it cannot 
even make them happy or wise. The state can only do what 
the people are willing to have done. The people can veto any 
provision that the state decides to enact or put in the form of 
law. And yet, what the state cannot possibly do, it is sure to 
be continually striving to do ; what is evidently practicable and 
easily accomplished, the state as a general thing is not partic- 
ularly concerned about. 

There is much that is mysterious about the state. To this 
day men do not know what the state is, nor where it is to be 
found. There is a state, as there is a God — no more and no 
less — both exist only as a matter of theory, in the minds of men. 



THE STATE AND ITS POWER. 191 

And, finally, when people come to see that there is really no 
state, and that common men called officers are the ones who 
speak and act for God, they will begin to have different con- 
ceptions of things from what they have now. 

It must be clear to every careful student that the state has 
become our God — and as such it has taken the place of God and 
the church. The state takes the place and does the work of Provi- 
dence. The state educates and trains its subjects. The state 
makes men rich, makes them powerful, makes them happy. 
The state is supposed to give men wisdom and help them out of 
their difficulties. The stats will do for us what we ought to do 
for ourselves, and so far it resembles Providence. But Provi- 
dence will let us starve, if we can do nothing ourselves, and so 
will the state. Men are too ready to run to the state for assist- 
ance. Whenever they get into trouble, financial or otherwise, 
they immediately rush to the state, as the child does to its parent 
or as the Christian does to his Saviour. 

But people ought, at this late day, to begin to realize just 
what the state is. The state works exclusively for itself, and 
its leading aim is to perpetuate its power, develop its own 
wealth and promote its own happiness, precisely as the king 
does or the pope. The state at the present day takes the place 
of the monarch in every respect. It is true, that under the 
present system, men do not see their master, the man who 
touches the button and controls all the machinery, but he can 
be found, concealed behind the curtain precisely as the priest was 
formerly concealed in the old pagan temples. The boss of the 
dominant party is the monarch in all modern states. The boss is 
the man who rules the party, and the party is what governs the 
state, and really is the state. No state, not even a democracy, 
has more than one boss, one sovereign, at a time. How could 
it have more ? As has been so often said, it is impossible to 
serve two masters. 

But the only community that flourishes is the one in which 
the individual flourishes. Men talk about the "greatest good 



192 THE STATE AND ITS POWER. 

to the greatest number. " What does that mean ? Does it mean 
that ten men shall perish in order that ninety shall survive? 
As a rule, what is understood to be the "greatest number" is 
really the smallest number. In practice, the multitude must 
suffer and economize in order that a few may become wealthy 
and powerful. Not only in this but in all countries, the end or 
aim to be attained is usually the greatest good to the smallest 
number. But what have numbers to do with the business at 
best ? We should seek to do good to all, making no distinction in 
any way. We should endeavor to save the ship of state, with all 
on board, rather than to cast a few Jonahs overboard in order to 
lighten the vessel and let the balance have fair sailing. 

Man is preeminently a selfish being, and no matter what 
position he may hold, he w T ill always seek to " feather his own 
nest. " Hence, whenever we put ourselves into the hands of 
other men for protection, or for any other reason, we make a 
sad mistake. When a man is allowed to take charge of our 
affairs and settle up our estate, he uniformly makes all the 
money out of the business that the law allows, and sometimes 
more. The best way is for every man to attend to his own 
matters and settle his own business. Men will never be free 
and independent until they adopt some such course as that. 
So long as men have other men to do their work, they must ex- 
pect to be dependent, and the chances are that in the end their 
fate will be poverty and bondage. So, if Americans allow for- 
eigners to work their farms, while they themselves do nothing, 
as has been the practice in this country of late, they must ex- 
pect that at no distant day those foreigners will own the farms, 
while the former owners will themselves have nothing. What 
we have just been saying in reference to man in his relations 
to man, would apply equally well to man in his relations to 
the state. If men leave everything to the state, they will event- 
ually be not only the servants of the state, but its bondsmen. 

The state is altogether too ready to take charge of our 
schools and do all the teaching, knowing that if it has charge of 

12 



THE POLICY OF THE STATE. 193 

the schools it can determine what shall be taught in them. No 
one can doubt that the state will manage the school and lay down 
the programme of instruction in such a manner as to be most 
conducive to the advancement of its own interests. So chil- 
dren are taught in school to be obedient and to honor their 
master, and especially to honor the state. Patriotism is taught 
as the highest of all virtues and the national flag is made, prac- 
tically, an object of worship. The chief object of state instruc- 
tion is to make willing and faithful servants of the children. 

THE POLICY OF THE STATE. 

Success in state management depends largely upon the 
practice of deception, and the better the state is able to conceal 
its true inwardness and hoodwink the people, the more certain 
it may be of securing prompt and trustful submission from the 
masses. The people are never allowed to know who the state 
actually is, nor who is the one that needs or wants their money. 
The whole policy of the state, as a rule, is one of actual or con- 
structive fraud and deception. The people are not permitted to 
know, except to a limited extent, what becomes of the taxes 
that are raised. A favorite method of raising revenues is 
through what is called ' ' indirect taxation, " a scheme by which 
large sums are taken from the pockets of the people annually, 
while those who pay the bill have no means of knowing how 
much is thus taken, nor what becomes of the money. 

In this, as in every other civilized country, no man can 
own anything unless it has the government brand on it in some 
place ; no one is permitted to do even the most simple thing, 
against the will or without the approval of the state. Society, 
or government, has all the power — the individual has none. The 
theory is, that all that people are good for is to serve the 
public, and m so doing, to serve the state. What the public 
wants, or rather what those want who control the machine, is to 
have some one else do the serving and sacrificing, while they 



194 



THE POLICY OF THE STATE. 



simply give the orders. The public always extols a man for his 
patriotism — it loves patriotism, in other people — but when a war 
is begun it is only a certain portion of the people who are sent 
forward to fill the enemy's prisons, or die in the hospitals or on 
the battlefields. Those who call themselves the state, with 
their favorites and friends, are careful to remain at home to 
raise funds and send forward recruits. Even if they join the 
army, they uniformly obtain some choice place, some office, or 
a position on some officer's staff, a clerkship in some depart- 
ment, or perhaps a situation as hospital steward. It is the 
" bone and sinew of the land " that is usually sent to the front — 
at least that has been the experience in this country in previous 
cases. It is always much more pleasant to rule than to be 
ruled, and to be on the inside than the outside when trouble 
arises. 

Max Stirner says, with truth : ' ' The state rests upon the 
slavery of labor. If labor were free, and the worker were his 
own master, the state would cease to exist. " The great works 
of this world are usually the product or result of what may be 
called slave labor. 

No one obeys this man or that man ; he obeys simply the 
law or the constitution. That is the prevailing fiction, and it 
has worked with surprising success thus far in most countries. 
But who makes the law, and how is it made ? It is much easier 
to name those who do not make the laws than those who do. 
The people who obey the law do not make the laws ; if they 
did, they would usually make them different. 

Men generally hate black slaves, but they have no objection 
at all to white slavery, provided it goes by some other name and 
is not against the law. They would not see a dog ill used or 
trodden under foot, but they stand by and see the noblest men 
of our land imposed upon, trampled down and even murdered in 
cold blood, if it is done in the name of the state, and if it is 
claimed to be necessary for the good of the public. The state 
can do anything it chooses — it can commit any imaginable 



\ 



THE POLICY OF THE STATE. 195 

crime, in order to tighten its grip or insure its safety or success. 
That is the remarkable prerogative that the state seems to 
possess. 

The ' ' Horrors of Slavery " was a book that I happened to 
come across in my younger days. It was an account given by 
an American who had fallen into the clutches of the Algerines 
in the early part of this century. The tale of sufferings related 
by this man was shocking enough, but a more affecting account 
than that could be given, if one should attempt to describe the 
sufferings and misfortunes of men and women in every civilized 
land to-day who are pestered, persecuted, prosecuted, ruined, 
and sometimes slaughtered in the name of Christianity and the 
law ! What will men not do, if they can only be brought to 
believe that it is their duty ? Is there any crime that they 
would hesitate to commit under such circumstances ? 

But, we cannot have brave men unless we have free men ; 
and we cannot have honest and virtuous men, until we have 
men who fear neither God nor man. Men who are afraid fail to 
do what they know they ought to do. A man who is under the 
law is a slave, and a slave can have no virtues, certainly no 
virtues of his own. He can never be himself — he must be some 
other one than himself — a sort of fraud or hypocrite, a nonde- 
script, a kind of centaur that is half horse and half human 
being. How can a man develop himself, fully and naturally, 
when he is always kept in a strait-jacket and is always under 
restraint ? 

It is rascals that get the most service and assistance from 
the state. The state will send out a regiment to protect a 
scalawag, if he happens to be a protege of the government, but 
what it would do for an honest and worthy citizen, would usu- 
ally be very little indeed. It is the majesty of the law, and its 
supposed violation, that arouses and irritates the state, and when 
the state feels insulted, it brings out its big guns in short order. 
Then the trouble begins. 

Under the state no man does anything that is not author- 



196 



THE POLICY OF THE STATE. 



ized. When a man does anything, the first question that is 
asked, especially if it is a little out of the ordinary course of 
things, is whether it is according to law. Everything is sup- 
posed to come from the state — it is the source of wealth, power,, 
happiness, everything. No wonder the state is our God, and 
there is no other God but the state. In the Middle Ages the 
church had all the power ; now the church is allied with the 
state, in a subordinate capacity, however. God himself has 
become simply a shadow, a remembrance, a form without either 
substance or power. 

It is a curious fact that the state in which the people 
rule is strictly an unlimited monarchy, because the government, 
the people, is the source of all power. The people are above 
kings ; the king gets his power from the people, and the^ 
people are the original source of power. The people take the 
place of God. And, by the way, whom do we mean by the 
" people " ? Do we mean everybody, the whole people? No, most 
assuredly not. The whole 'people never does anything — it would be im- 
possible. When we say the people, we mean some people, a few 
people, those who take the lead and conduct the business — they 
are the people in all cases. All other people are ghosts, mere 
words. Nay more, when we talk about what the whole people 
does, we are trying to perpetrate a fraud and deceive the public. 

We pay to the state because we feel obligated on account of 
the good we imagine it does for us. The state, as we believe, 
gives us our daily bread, or at least if it were not for the con- 
stant protection the state gives us, we could not have our daily 
sustenance. We have everything from society and the state. 
But what does the state have from us ? What could the state 
or society do without you and me, and the rest of us ? With- 
out us, there never would be any state. The obligation is really 
on the other side ; we could exist without society, but society 
could not exist for a moment without the individuals of which 
it is composed. 

In this connexion, the following additional truths may be 



THE POLICY OF THE STATE. 



197 



brought to the attention of the reader : All men are equal 
among themselves — but as against the state, there is no possible 
room for comparison. The state has all the power, and the in- 
dividual none. The one who has the power is right always — 
power is the only source of justice that is known. Unfor- 
tunately, it is impossible to reform either the state, the govern- 
ment, or law. We can dispense with them, but we cannot im- 
prove them. It is impossible to make a good man a bad man, 
or to convert a bad man into a good man. It must not be for- 
gotten that the state in its whole nature is depraved — it teas con- 
ceived in iniquity. 

It must be remembered that the state is a ghost, so is soci- 
ety, mankind, the court, and organizations of all kinds. They 
are all ideal and not real things. Bodies of men are always 
ghosts, mere imaginary existences. Their sole representative 
is a word. 

Finally, nothing is holy unless I make it holy. No man is 
my master unless I make him such, or unless I follow and obey 
Mm. As a matter of fact, I do not believe in sacred things, 
oecause I do not believe in sacredness itself. Why should I 
recognize power ? What is power desired for ? Simply to have 
something to apply to those who are subject to power. If men 
■did not desire my labor, my money, my property, myself, they would 
never seek to overpower me. So it is with the state. 

STATE INTERFERENCE. 

As a matter of principle, I am decidedly opposed to govern- 
ment's meddling with the affairs of individuals in any way or 
for any purpose. Ninety per cent, of our business is done 
without the aid or interposition of law, and it seems evident 
that with a little effort the interference in the other ten per cent, 
might also be dispensed with. Since people who make rules and 
establish laws for our observance are ordinarily no better, no 
wiser, no abler, and no hones ter than the common run of man- 



198 STATE INTERFERENCE. 

kind, why should they set themselves up as the arbiters of our 
fate, or as the men who must control our action and dictate our 
course in life ? Men need but little governing. If every man 
learns, as he ought, to govern himself, there will be nothing, or 
essentially nothing, left for the officers of the law to care for. 
The few duties to be performed for the community should be 
left to experienced and reliable men who know their duty and 
are willing to perform what is required of them without hope 
of reward. Men should not be taken from their duties in life to 
do this or that for the public, such as serving on juries or going 
to war. 

There is no machinery so expensive as government, and the 
expense it incurs is by no means necessary or unavoidable. The 
only case where the government could be of any real benefit to 
the individual would be when called upon to aid or defend him 
in case of attack by a stronger party, and that is something that 
could rarely occur in society, organized as it is at present. But 
we pay very dearly indeed for all such protection and assist- 
ance when it comes. It might be better for us to save the 
money we pay out in tithes and taxes in various forms, and buy 
off our enemies when we find ourselves too weak to resist their 
encroach ments. 

Government provides, at the expense of the people always, 
for an army of parasites — indolent, tramplike fellows who pro- 
duce nothing themselves, but who, when they come to what 
others have produced, are ready to consume all they can put 
their hands on. They are of no earthly benefit to society, and 
yet it is compelled to support such people, often in idleness, with 
the products of its own toil and exertions. No matter how great 
or how glorious may be the nation to which we belong, pro- 
vided we are neither beggars nor thieves, we must still earn our 
own living precisely as if we belonged merely to one of the 
humblest communities in the world, and not only that, we 
must labor to support a multitude of others, who, being in the 
employ, or rather in the pay, of government, are relieved from 



STATE INTERFERENCE. 



199 



all ordinary cares and are able to spend much of their time in 
indolence. 

It is a grave charge to be made against all governments, 
even those of the mildest form, that they place unjust and un- 
welcome burdens upon the shoulders of those who ought not to 
bear them. It is clear enough, for instance, that if men do not 
wish to join in foraging or marauding expeditions against a 
people who have never done them any harm, as always hap- 
pens in the case of war, they ought to be permitted to remain 
at home and they should not be called upon to share in the ex- 
penses or dangers of such an undertaking. But it is well known 
that no government will allow things to be done in that way. 
It is enough that war is declared, no matter how unjustly nor 
with what selfish motives on the part of the leaders, to entitle 
the government to call out every available man. Can the abso- 
lute subjugation of the masses by the government be demon- 
strated by any fact more clearly than by this ? 

We often hear it said that the government does this and 
does that for the people. But how does it do these things ? 
Whose energies does it employ and whose money does it use ? 
It is the people — bear in mind, the people — who do the work and 
always pay the bills. And what makes the matter all the 
worse, is the fact that the burden usually falls upon only a por- 
tion of the people, while the remainder derive the most of the 
benefit and pay nothing themselves. It is said that the govern- 
ment supports schools, aids manufactures, protects the iron 
interests, helps the sugar industry, pays subsidies to steamboat 
lines, opens harbors for localities where they are little used, 
and carries the people's mails to the most remote settlements in 
the land. We will grant that it does. But how does the gov- 
ernment do this? It requires money to conduct and continue 
such enterprises, and yet the government itself, as everybody 
knows, has not a cent of money of its own. No, it is all done with 
the money of the people. The main business of government, it would 
seem, is to take money from one class of -people and deposit it safely in 



200 STATE INTERFERENCE. 

the pockets of another class of people. It aids the iron and sugar 
industries by the money which it takes from the pockets or 
purses of those who are compelled to consume iron and sugar. 
It subsidizes steamboat companies, supports schools and builds 
school-houses, carries mails, and maintains harbors, with the 
money which it takes from the people as a whole, through the 
medium either of direct or indirect taxes. That is just what 
governments have been doing ever since Noah left the ark, and 
no doubt it is what governments will continue to do till the day 
of judgment comes. For, so long as we have government, the 
people must continue to pay taxes in some form, and the main 
office of the state must be to keep money in circulation by taking 
it forcibly from one or mwe large classes and spending it for the benefit 
of one or more small classes. Governments are just like our loan 
associations. They do not invest a cent of their money, and 
they rarely have any of their own to invest, but they handle 
the money of other people with most surprising dexterity. 
Money conies and goes, and we are reminded of the figures in 
Punch and Judy : " now you see it and now you don't. ,? It all 
comes from the way the figures, or the funds, are manipulated. 
The government, especially modern government, seems to have 
no other office than to collect funds and disburse them. 

The state has no pity, no sympathy, no mercy. How could 
it have, when it is not even possessed of feeling? The state, 
never conscious itself, is not concerned, for one moment, as is 
too well known, about the sufferings and sorrows of its citizens 

its concern is confined entirely to the needs and troubles of 

the state itself. The state is said to protect and provide for 
people and in that way to take the place of a parent. But what 
a queer protector, provider and father the state proves to be ! 
Instead of the state providing for the people, it is absolutely a 
pauper itself and never has a cent of money that has not been 
wrung from the taxpayers under some pretence or other. The 
state is a parasite in all its ways, purposes and workings ; it 
always consumes and never produces. Its subjects are slaves. 



STATE INTERFERENCE. 201 

They hold precisely the same relations to the state that the 
vassal held under his lord in old feudal times. Never working 
itself, its main business is to appropriate the lion's share of all 
that the people produce. If the people have nothing left, more's 
the pity for them ; in such a case the tax must come from some 
one who has been more fortunate than they. The tribute must 
always be forthcoming, and if the people at last become so poor 
that they starve, emigrants from abroad are brought in to fill 
their places. 

Who ever heard of the state caring for the people merely 
for the good of the people ? Where in the wide world does the 
state do business in that way? The occupation of the state is 
exclusively to look after its own interests and the good of the 
favorites of its party. The state is preeminently selfish in its 
character, but it is always a great stickler for law — that is, law 
of its own make. The state always follows the law — that is, the 
law as its own judges interpret it. It would not violate the 
law even to save a poor sinner's neck. The state does occasion- 
ally help people, its own favorites or men of some one particular 
guild, but mark, the money with which the assistance is ren- 
dered is in every case taken from the people. Indeed, one of 
the chief occupations of the state is to take the money from one 
class of people in order to help another class that it likes better. 
The state always has some job on hand. Every law that is 
passed implies a job for the benefit of somebody. 

The state is continually taxing some men to help others. 
No doubt we ought to be liberal with our fellow men, but the 
state cannot compel us to be liberal. What the state compels us 
to do, we do not do ourselves. The state says, " be industrious 
and labor for me ; earn money, and when you have accumu- 
lated a little, I will divide with you. " That is precisely what 
the state is doing every day, told in language that is so plain 
that it cannot be mistaken. It is surprising to see how callous 
people come to be by long suffering, and how they cease to 
notice burdens that they have borne on their shoulders for a 



202 STATE INTERFERENCE. 

lifetime. A whole nation may come to be slaves, and yet not 
realize that they are slaves. Only convince people that they 
ought to do this or that, and they will do anything that is 
demanded of them, even to offering up their lives. People have 
always been taught, they have always believed, and they still 
believe, that their first and last duty is to pay taxes and labor 
for the state. Is it not strange that people should see nothing 
wrong in taxes, no matter to what extent or under what pre- 
tence they are levied ? A few centuries ago people would not 
have paid taxes as we pay them, but now we look upon taxes 
as the most natural and proper thing to be found in practical 
life. So we go on paying taxes for the school-district, taxes 
for the town or city, taxes for the state, taxes for the nation, 
taxes at the custom house, taxes for license, taxes to help the 
church, taxes to feed the tramps — taxes for every place and 
thing conceivable. Everything with us is conducted on the old 
feudal basis ; the state is our lord and we are its vassals or 
villeins. Our government is strictly military in its character. 
With us the people rule — but there is a power behind the throne, 
unseen, unheard, unnoticed, that rules the people. So the king 
is supposed to rule — but a mistress or a favorite often rules the 
king. 

Our whole education as subjects of the state is to make 
good soldiers, good servants, willing slates. Of course people do 
not call themselves slaves — they call themselves sovereigns, but 
all they have to show for the claim is the name. People have a 
great aversion to the name of slave. The slave-owners of other 
days did not call the blacks slaves ; they went by the name 
of " help, " hands. " " boys. " and the like. So the hired man 
and hired girl would rebel if they went by the name of slaves. 
They are called servants ! But what is a servant ? One who 
serves, and one who therefore holds the same relations to his 
employer that a slave holds to his master. The word servant is 
identical with the Latin servu*, from servo, which was the word 
for slave. 



STATE INTERFERENCE. 203 

How can we properly call the state a protector ? Does it 
ever lift a common citizen up when he is found to be prostrated ? 
Does it ever defend him when attacked, does it give him bread 
when he is hungry, or does it render him assistance when he is 
in need of it ? Xo. on the mere outcry of an ordinary man or 
woman, it would not raise a hand, give a nod or even move its 
tongue to relieve the helpless. No, nothing can be done except 
by due process of law — the court must first issue its mandate, 
before any man can be arrested, and before the court gets 
ready to move, the culprit usually escapes. The part of pro- 
tector that it pretends to play as a star performer is a fraud, a 
mere pretence and nothing more. Its ruling doctrine is neu- 
trality, non-interference, strict observance of the law in all 
cases — that is. of law as the state makes and interprets it. But 
when the state happens to be interested, it never hesitates to 
interfere, and if the law is in the way. it is promptly altered to 
suit the emergency. The state, as we have more than once in- 
timated, is unmerciful. It would take the last shirt from a 
man"s back, if he happened to be a little short in his taxes. 
The state totally neglects the suffering, starving, wronged mul- 
titudes under its eye. and yet it arfects to have a tender regard 
for the Armenian-, the people of India, the natives of Venezuela, 
and the pagans of Hawaii. If there are any suffering, op- 
pressed people in Mars or Jupiter, our state would like to know 
it. so that sympathy might be extended to those remote and un- 
known inhabitants. 

While we are on this subject of state interference, the 
reader should be reminded that men often allow themselves to 
be deluded by the way certain terms are used, and in no case is 
this delusion more striking than in the case of the free schools, 
the free text books, and. indeed, the free things of all kinds 
which the state is supposed to furnish people as a gratuity. As 
a rule, it will be found that free thing* are simply what other people 
pay fur — and this is emphatically true in the case of free schools, 
free text books, and all such luxuries. A school to be really free 



204 STATE INTERFERENCE. 

ought to be free to everybody, but as a matter of fact it is free 
only to those who have no taxes to pay. For the ordinary tax- 
payer, the free school is more expensive than any other, partly 
because he is apt to be called upon to pay more than his share, 
and partly because schools that other people pay for are uni- 
formly higher priced every way than schools that people them- 
selves pay for, for the reason that when people make bills for 
others to pay, they are not very particular how high the bills 
become. What we have said of free schools is true also of free 
text books. Instead of being free for every portion of the com- 
munity, one portion will have to pay enough to buy their own 
text books and then contribute toward the purchase of books 
for others besides. And so it is with the free lunch in our 
saloons. The customer really imagines that he gets his lunch 
for nothing, and he usually eats accordingly, but he always pays 
for his lunch when he pays for his drinks, or in other words, he 
pays about two cents for his beer and three cents for the cheap 
stuff that he eats. Very few people get anything for nothing in 
this world, and when they do. somebody certainly has to pay 
for it. 

As we have seen, the character that is generally assigned 
to the state is that of a champion or defender of the people, 
but would not just the opposite character be more appropriate ? 
Is not its character, in most of the parts which it plays, that of 
a persecutor and oppressor ? Is it not a professional disturber 
of the peace ? Is it not continually on the watch for something 
wrong, something out of order or something against the law ? 
Are we not overburdened with spies and informers ? Are there 
not state agents or detectives in disguise continually peering 
around to see what is done or what is left undone ? Have we 
not factory inspectors, butter inspectors, boiler inspectors, build- 
ing inspectors, revenue inspectors, food inspectors and inspect- 
ors of all kinds ? Has not the state its paid agents whose duty 
it is to see everything we do, and how we are doing it — where 
we fish and how we fish, how we observe Sunday and where we 



STATE INTERFERENCE. 205 

keep it. where our children are employed and how old they are. 
how often we pay our help and how much ? But we need not 
enumerate. We have only to add that if there is anything the 
state does not meddle with, it must be something that is not 
worth meddling with, something that does not bring with it 
either money or power. Is not the state, by the new laws it 
passes, constantly undermining the affairs of its citizens, and 
rendering business unsettled, unremunerative and uncertain? 
Everybody is obliged to wait and see what congress or the leg- 
islature will do. or whether it will do anything at all or not. 
This is the kind of protection that we get from the state. 

But the most oppressive and unwarranted interference on 
the part of the state is to be found in the enforcing of contracts 
— not contracts in which the state is concerned, but contracts 
in which individuals alone are concerned — and I would ask : 
What propriety can there be in the state's coming forward 
and punishing a man. causing him pain and suffering, for no 
other reason than that he prefers not to fulfill his promise or 
keep his contract ? What we call the state, it must be remem- 
bered, in this case as in all others, is only a few ordinary men 
who are acting in the name and under the protection of the 
state. The two individuals making the contract are strangers 
to the agents of the state, no doubt, and they have had no re- 
lations with them whatever. Why should such men interfere 
and use the powerful machinery of the state to enforce an or- 
dinary contract between these two or any other two men? 
Again, if the state interferes in the case of one contract, and. 
indeed, in all the private affairs of life, why should it not in- 
terfere in all contracts in order to compel men to do what it is 
assumed by the state they ought to do ? But it only interferes 
in special cases, while in other cases just as important it leaves 
the individuals to settle the question between themselves. 

It is only under certain conditions, where certain prescribed 
forms and ceremonies have been observed — where, perhaps, 
there has been a writing, a signature, a seal — that the state in- 



206 STATE INTERFERENCE. 

terposes and allies itself either with one side or the other. But 
why interpose at all ? People should be left to their manhood 
and their own sense of propriety in all such cases. Let people 
do right not from fear, but because they desire to do right and 
feel that they ought to do right. If it is found that certain 
people do not keep their promises, no one will of course deal 
with them. That is the remedy always at command. If people 
know that they must depend solely on a man's honor, they 
will be careful to ascertain in the first place whether he has 
any or not. 

It must be remembered that there are plenty of contracts 
that cannot be enforced, plenty of debts that cannot be col- 
lected, such as those made in dealing with minors, and hence it 
is that prudent men are careful how they deal with irresponsible 
people. If we had no contracts, we would have no debts, and 
how much better that would be for mankind ! Few have any 
adequate idea how much misery is caused by tormenting men 
for no other reason than that they cannot or will not keep their 
contracts. 

It should be observed that no man should make a promise 
or a contract. When he binds himself by a promise, he ceases 
to be a free man. He has no freedom of action and he is not 
really himself, because he has made himself subject to some 
other person's will. He has sold himself to some one. at least 
for the time being. A man ought to have some better reason for 
doing things than simply that he has made a promise. He may 
make a bad promise. How often does a man regret that he has 
bound himself by a promise and cannot do at the last moment 
what he feels ought to be done ! Men should make no promises, 
but simply wait and do what seems proper when the time 
comes. 

There is one more case of state interference that I would 
like to dwell on. but I will merely speak of it and pass it by. 
I refer to the matter of wills. I beg to ask, on what grounds of 
justice and propriety can the state step in and compel citizens 



THE FAILINGS OF THE STATE. 207 

to cany out the wishes — often the crazy wishes — of a dead man ? 
If there is anything quite so absurd and outrageous as such in- 
terference on the part of the state, I am not able to bring it to 
my mind. 



THE FAILINGS OF THE STATE. 



Who are the servants of the state, who are the managers 
and masters of the people ? Are they the wise and good men that 
they are usually supposed to be ? Are they above the average 
in intelligence, sagacity and business talent? Are they the men 
to whom a nation can entrust its fate — its homes, its property 
and its lives — with a feeling of security and reliance upon their 
judgment and skill? No, as a rule they are not such men. They 
are too often below the average in intellect and character — too 
often they are stupid, incompetent, unwise and unsafe men. 
That is the history of government employees the world over — 
they are as a rule below the average. They are too often merely 
somebody's favorite or somebody's friend, some one who has 
been unfortunate in business, and who is in need of a place, 
or perhaps some one who lias amassed a fortune and wants 
to display his wealth and secure a position in society for him- 
self and his family. This is the kind of stuff of which the public 
servants, our masters, are too often made. Really good men, 
really able and reliable men all the world over will have noth- 
ing to do with the business of government — and hence this work 
is left largely, though of course not exclusively, to knaves or 
fools. A person would suppose that governing would be the 
simplest, easiest thing in the world. But as a matter of fact it 
is so complicated, so mysterious in its operations, and so difficult 
to master in its details, that no man living has ever yet proved 
to be a great success as a master or manager of men while 
grouped in bodies of considerable size. It takes an uncom- 
monly smart man to boss successfully even a hundred men, but 
when the number mounts up to thousands and even millions, 



208 THE FAILINGS OF THE STATE. 

the problem is too deep, the undertaking too vast for any mortal 
being. Even the Creator himself could hardly be pronounced 
a success in this line, for it is a fact that is well known to all 
that the devil can tear down faster than the Almighty can 
buildup. Herbert Spencer says: "Is it not manifest that a 
ruling body made up of many individuals, who differ in charac- 
ter, education, and aims, who belong to classes having antago- 
nistic ideas and feelings, and who are severely swayed by the 
special opinions of the districts deputing them, must be a cum- 
bersome apparatus for the management of public affairs ? " 

A small business, in any department, can be understood and 
mastered even by men of most ordinary capacity, but as the 
business enlarges, as it covers more territory and embraces more 
departments, it becomes too complicated, too extensive, for any 
common mind to master or understand, and the consequence is 
that the ablest men find it impossible, in most cases, to connect 
cause and effect so as to prevent misfortunes or to provide a 
remedy when trouble arises. To conduct the affairs of a big 
nation, is like the case of a man who undertakes to manage a 
farm that is ten times as large as he can successfully su- 
perintend. The inevitable result in government affairs, and in 
all similar cases where the work to be accomplished far exceeds 
the powers of those who have undertaken it. is that the waste 
is enormous, and the service rendered in most instances bears no 
sort of comparison with the amount of money required and ex- 
pended. Under such circumstances too many things must be 
delayed, and where there are so many kinds of work to be done 
by so many different men, responsibility must be divided and 
neither credit nor blame can in all cases be placed where it 
properly belongs. 

There are inherent weaknesses in all organizations, and this 
is especially the case when bodies of men take the form of com- 
panies, combinations, corporations, confederacies or states. 
The seeds of dissolution and decay are sown in the earlier 
periods of the formation of such bodies, and it is not possible 

13 



THE FAILINGS OF THE STATE. 



209 



for them to flourish or succeed for any great length of time. 
The management of such organizations involves the most ex- 
travagant expenditures. People will save money which they 
themselves earn, but they will rarely make much effort to save 
the money some one else earns. Do we not see this fact 
exemplified every day in the affairs of state? Individuals 
thrive or succeed because they handle their own funds and at- 
tend personally to their own affairs. But in the case of or- 
ganizations of all kinds, and especially in affairs of state, the 
management of the whole business is delegated to some one 
who is acting merely in a fiduciary or representative capacity. 
It is impossible for organizations to succeed for any great 
length of time — there are too many heads, and the responsibility 
of those who act is not sufficiently determined. No business is 
ever done well where there is more than one head. 

Where do we find greater mistakes made, or money spent 
more lavishly or more foolishly, than in the management of 
the affairs of state ? Every official of the state has the position 
merely of an agent, and he is constantly trammeled by the 
authority of some one who is over him. However competent, 
or even faithful himself, he never knows just how, or when to 
do anything. In the very necessities of the case, state work 
can never be done well as a whole, and it can never be done 
economically. Some parts of the work may be well done, but 
when a government job is completed, it is certain to have 
numerous defects. It is well known that the most expensive 
structures of the state are always faulty in construction. So, 
too, armies in the field are generally improperly clothed and in- 
sufficiently supplied with food — a fact which arises as often from 
the very necessities or circumstances of the case as it does from 
the corruption or incompetency of officials. As Herbert Spencer 
says : ' ' Official regulation perpetually fails. " The government 
rarely succeeds, except in cases like our war of the Rebellion, 
where the number of lives lost and the amount of money squan- 
dered seemed to be a matter of little account. Why should not 



210 THE FAILINGS OF THE STATE. 

a government succeed, when a nation is willing to sacrifice its 
last life and spend its last dollar for an idea? But when the 
means at command are limited, and but few are willing to sac- 
rifice their property and their lives, a state never succeeds. 

As a rule, the state is helped too much, and it derives its 
supplies from too great a number of sources. It rarely makes a 
proper use of the resources at its command. When a business 
man sees anything to be done, and observes how it ought to be 
done, he goes at it at once. He does not hesitate or maneu- 
ver one minute — he strikes when the iron is hot, and he applies his 
blows where they are certain to count. But the state never does 
business that way. The state indulges in long delays ; it calls 
a council of war, and debates the matter. Everything must be 
done according to law and precedent. Red tape must not be 
neglected, and so it is that the state uniformly waits too long. 
When the house is burned down, it comes around, in a very for- 
mal and deliberate manner, with its ponderous fire extin- 
guisher. When somebody has been killed, it starts its officials 
on the war-path and directs them to ascertain who committed 
the murder. If some one happens to apprehend the culprit, 
the government at once proceeds to lay violent hands on him, 
with the view of taking summary vengeance in his case. But 
the state never concerns itself about preventing houses from 
being burned nor about saving men from being killed. That does 
not come within the province or the line of duty of an ordinary 
state. The office of the state is very much like that of the 
doctor or undertaker, whose business it is not to keep people 
well or prevent them from being killed, but to give them medi- 
cine when they are sick and to aid in giving them a decent 
burial after they are dead. The state never thinks of prevent- 
ing a burglary, but only of punishing the robber after he is 
caught. 

As a protector, the state tolerates no rivals, and while act- 
ing in that capacity, it really believes that it is doing the work 
that was monopolized originally by the Almighty himself. The 



THE FAILINGS OF THE STATE. 



211 



state protects ! Yes, the state protects its favorites, while it 
uniformly leaves the rest of the people to care for themselves. 
The state protects the trusts, the corporations, the syndicates, 
the millionaires, the monopolists, and the capitalists generally, 
while, like the big bully that it is, it will stand still and see the 
weak robbed by the strong every day. There is no exaggeration or 
hyperbole about this — it is merely the gospel truth. If you are 
on the Lord's side — that is, if you have money and are on the 
side of law and the state — you can do as you please. Or is there 
really some wickedness yet undiscovered or unheard of that 
the government could not legitimatize by the enactment of a law ? 

Protection ! As a matter of fact, the state cares nothing for 
the lives and property of individuals, as individuals. As we 
have already seen, the state has no sympathy, no feeling. The 
state from motives of the purest selfishness, will take from the 
citizen either his life or his property, without the slightest sign 
of contrition or concern. All it wants is either an opportunity 
or an occasion — that is sufficient. With some new law that it 
has had passed to meet the case, it will sweep over the land like 
a tornado, rendering thousands homeless and penniless, and send- 
ing scores, perhaps, to a premature grave, as the result of in- 
sufficient food or of exposure to the elements. All from the 
passage of a new law. These things are liable to happen, and 
do happen frequently, in every civilized, law-making and law- 
abiding country on the globe. 

If the people could only be induced to think ! But, then, 
trying to make people think is like trying to wake the dead. 
People will not think — they will merely feel. They will not even 
try to think — the fact is, they do not and they will not care, 
until it is finally too late. After a man's hands are firmly tied, it 
does him very little good to either scream or kick. When it 
comes to that point, it is best to submit and be a good slave. 
That is the way people are generally doing to-day. 



212 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 

Can the state commit a crime ? That question, in principle, 
is identical with this other question : Does the rank, station or 
occupation of an offender make any difference with the nature 
of the offence of which he is found to be guilty ? To the latter 
question, the prevailing answer at the present day is that it 
does not. It must be remembered that the crimes committed by 
the state are merely crimes committed by men who are in the 
employ of the state. But no man, under our present code of 
morals, is allowed to defend himself or excuse himself for his 
wrong-doing on the plea that he had orders from higher 
authority to do as he had done. It is clear enough that no 
authority can be granted for the commission of crime, and it is 
impossible to have one code for ordinary men and another for 
the officers of the state. The acts of all men, without regard to 
power or position, must be judged solely upon their merits. 

There is no doubt that the state is powerful, but there is 
one thing the state cannot do, it cannot make a wrong right. 
It cannot make black white, nor change darkness into light ; it 
cannot wash out the sins of the criminal, nor can it take upon 
itself the burden of any one's wrongs. What should be impressed 
upon the minds of all. is the fact that the state with all its power 
cannot alter the character of iniquity. A bad act done by the 
command of the state is just as wicked and just as criminal as 
if done without any such order. No man can excuse himself 
for doing what he knows to be wrong on the plea that the state 
gives him its permission or orders the work done. Those who 
represent the state have the gifts only of common men. and 
they have no powers that other men do not have. If the 
state is guilty of murder, it is a crime just as much as if the 
deed had been done by some individual under ordinary circum- 
stances. If the state takes money from the people by force, the 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



213 



act is robbery just as certainly as if it were the work of some 
noted highwayman. If the state orders a man to steal, or 
authorizes him to do so, that does not compel him to steal, 
nor does it leave him guiltless if he does steal. 

It is evident, however, that the state would like to reserve 
for itself the exclusive privilege of committing crimes. The 
Bible tells us not to kill ; the laws of our government tell us 
not to kill, and yet the state does not hesitate to kill even 
hundreds at a time, if the occasion seems to render such a 
-step either expedient or necessary. But it must be borne in 
mind that when the state executes a man, or has him shot 
<down, it kills him ; and the killing being done in the most de- 
liberate manner imaginable, the state must be guilty of murder. 
The state takes a man's property whenever it likes, and seldom 
offers any return or any compensation, but when the state does 
that, it is clearly guilty of robbery. There is no other name that 
could properly apply to such a proceeding. For all its bar- 
barous and villainous action, the state offers such pleas as that 
of "necessity," " self -protection. " and "public good." But 
has not the criminal also just as valid an excuse for his conduct ? 
He also finds crime necessary and expedient ; if it is not for 
the public good, it is at least for his own private good, and that 
is better for him than public good. The only difference between 
the state and the individual in regard to the wrongs perpe- 
trated, is that the former seeks to legalize its acts by going 
through certain forms and ceremonies which are supposed to 
render its conduct legitimate, while the latter does nothing of 
the kind. But as we have already intimated, it is impossible to 
alter the character of an act by resorting to any such expedient 
as that. If a deed is black, it will remain black, no matter how 
many kings or legislatures may attempt to ratify or legalize the 
crime. The leopard's spots cannot be changed, and if they 
could be, the leopard itself would cease to exist. A leopard with- 
out spots is not a leopard. 

Men talk much about the legality of things, and especially 



214 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



of the just and rightful claims of the constituted authorities. 
But upon what are these claims of the government based ? How 
was the original, fundamental law established in the first place ? 
Who were the first law-makers of which history gives us any 
account ? It will be found, when this question is carefully and 
deliberately examined, that the original law-makers were uni- 
formly bolters, rebels, insurgents, men who were opposed to the 
legal order of things existing at the time and were determined 
to have a new deal. Such are the men who found new govern- 
ments and establish new constitutions for the people. Let us 
go back to the early history of the American government, now 
one of the most stable to be found on the globe. How did that 
begin ? Who were the founders ? The fact cannot be disputed 
that they were what the mother country always called them, 
simply rebels. They refused to pay the taxes or obey the laws 
of a government to which they certainly owed as much as any 
people ever did in this world. The rebellion became general 
throughout the colonies, and in union there proved to be 
strength. A few colonies started the ball rolling, and others 
eventually joined in the undertaking. Repeated successes gave 
them prestige and led finally to the recognition of the colonies 
by countries abroad. In the end, the rebels were triumphant, 
and the mother country submitted and withdrew from the 
contest in despair. It was success that legalized all that the 
rebels had done and placed the stamp of legitimacy upon every- 
thing that their descendants have done since. So it has been 
with all the governments that have been formed from time to 
time in France. The founders in all cases were rebels. All the 
authority they ever had came directly from the success of their 
undertaking. It must not be forgotten that every new govern- 
ment is essentially illegitimate, because it takes the place of the 
old one which of course is legitimate, if it is nothing else. 
And how are the royal families founded ? Every one knows 
that a royal family is not materially different in character from 
any other family. Going back in history, perhaps a century or 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



215 



more, we find that there was a contest. In this struggle the 
ancestors of the royal family were successful, and that made 
them legitimate, while their rivals having suffered defeat drop 
down into the ranks of common mortals and their names cease 
to be mentioned in history. 

But the best illustration of legitimacy and its origin is per- 
haps to be found in the American caucus system. Everybody 
knows that the caucus is the foundation stone of our govern- 
ment. Without a caucus no man can be nominated, and with- 
out a nomination no man, in practice, can be elected. Of course 
if no man was elected, we should have no officers, no laws, no 
government. Without the caucus, everything would be chaos. 
If we had no caucus, under our present party system, our coun- 
try would have nothing to stand on. The caucus is the prime 
source, in practice, of all legitimacy. But whence does the 
caucus derive its authority? Who started the first or original 
caucus, the caucus from which all succeeding caucuses date ? 
It is evident that such a caucus must have been decidedly irreg- 
ular, and its members must have been, in the fullest sense, self- 
constituted. We see plenty of instances even at the present 
day, which go to show how the chain comes to be broken and a 
new order of things is started in place of the old. As long as 
things go along smoothly in the party, everything is done ac- 
cording to law and precedent. But by and by there comes a 
time when a few individuals, from some cause or other, take it 
into their heads to bolt and have a caucus of their own. This is 
a very simple thing to do. No special qualifications are re- 
quired, and everybody is admitted who desires to join in the 
movement. This is where one man is as good as another, and 
things are resolved into their elements. Here there is at least a 
semblance of liberty and equality. The original caucus of self- 
constituted members elects delegates which are sent on to the 
convention and are there recognized. That makes them reg- 
ular, and from that simple starting point legality begins for that 
faction. In the beginning there is no test of legitimacy, and no 



216 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



qualifications for voters are required. Then things go along 
pleasantly until some new trouble arises and a new outbreak 
occurs. In the case of such an uprising, the venture succeeds 
or it does not. If it succeeds, the proceedings of the seceders 
are recognized as legal. If it fails, it is pronounced rebellion or 
heresy, and it is treated accordingly. No legislature, no sov- 
ereign that the world has yet seen ever had a better foundation 
on which to stand than the simple one whose character has just 
been portrayed. Any set of men can start a party or a govern- 
ment, as any set of men can originate an ordinary caucus — if 
they only have the ability and the good fortune to succeed. 
What the people finally consent to or submit to is lawful. It is 
purely a question of recognition and submission. On such 
slender threads does the history of our great states hang. 

It must be remembered that the members of the old English 
parliament were not chosen originally by any organized body or 
according to any legal forms. They were generally named, 
selected and summoned by the king either directly or indirectly, 
and were largely men of his choice, rather than the choice of 
the people. Yet such a parliament made laws for the realm. 
Even the peers of England to-day are not elected, and hence 
they are not representatives in any true sense. And if we ex- 
amine the history of constitutions, we shall find it is with them 
as it is with caucuses. In the beginning they are irregular, and 
the men who take part in them cannot boast of the legitimacy of 
their action. They have subverted the old order of things and 
established one that is new. But the 'Ad order is always legitimate, 
while the new can never be. The men who form the first constitu- 
tion of a nation are uniformly bolters, seceders, rebels. Hegel 
calls them "an automatic gathering of individuals. " They are 
an aggregation merely, a collection, without law, without 
authority, without character, and without the least semblance 
of legitimacy of any kind. It may not be amiss to remind the 
reader that parliaments have grown to be what they are through 
a slow process of development. Originally such bodies were 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 217 

merely the king's councillors, and their duties were judicial 
rather than legislative. In no sense were they chosen represen- 
tatives of the people. Legislation and representation are both 
phases of government that belong exclusively to modern times. 

The foundation of all courts, legislatures, and even of all 
governments, being such as we have just indicated, can it be 
that a man who does a villainous act is any less a villain because 
he is an officer of the law, or because the law authorizes or per- 
mits him to do some wicked work which he finds to his advan- 
tage to have done ? I should say that the flag or the title under 
which a work was performed could have little or no influence 
upon its real character. If law-makers choose to shield rogues 
and rascals, they may be able to protect them from the legal 
consequences of their action, but they can never place such 
people in the category of honest and fair men. If a man has 
the prestige of a conqueror and can do what he chooses, that 
fact certainly does not relieve him from any of the guilt which 
wrong-doing always implies. A man's position in society or his 
rank among men, cannot change the character of his conduct 
nor relieve him from the responsibility properly connected with 
his action. 

Or is it possible that a trial in court and a decision of the 
judge can alter the nature of the crime or deprive the criminal 
of any rights or privileges that he had before ? It is clear 
enough that no trial in court can create either rights or duties, 
and no state acquires rights through a trial that it did not 
possess in the first place. Cronin was tried and condemned by 
a secret tribunal in the city of Chicago. But that did not alter 
the nature of the crime of those who were commissioned to 
assassinate him. Every disinterested person calls it murder, 
precisely the same as if the act had been committed without 
the formality of a trial. So it is in the case of the state. A trial 
and a verdict do not affect the character of the crime com- 
mitted in the name of the state, nor do they relieve the execu- 
tioner from any of the odium that is naturally connected with 



218 CRIMES OF THE STATE. 

his deed. A trial is very often only the means by which a 
murderer accomplishes his object without rendering himself 
liable to punishment for his crime. Henry VIII. had his 
enemies beheaded by due process of law, but he was a murderer 
for all that. He did not differ very materially in his purposes 
from Blue Beard of old, only the latter had by far the most busi- 
nesslike and most independent way of accomplishing what he 
wanted done. Getting men in the clutches of the law is only 
one way of readily disposing of them. Assassination is another 
way, a little more quiet and a little more expeditious perhaps, 
but it is just as honorable a method as that of charging a man 
with crime, bringing him into court, and finally having him 
found guilty and executed. There is no essential difference in 
the character of these two methods, the one private and the 
other public, and one is no more sinful than the other. I am 
not able to see that strangling a man in prison before he is 
found guilty is in any sense more criminal than having him 
strangled after the verdict is rendered. Both ways were fol- 
lowed in the Middle Ages, and no one pretends now that the 
legal way was in any sense more innocent than the private 
method. If it is right for a dozen men to kill one whom they 
want out of the way, it must be equally right for a single in- 
dividual to do the same thing. It hurts a man just as badly to 
be killed by a sheriff, or by orders of a judge, as to meet death 
at the hands of an ordinary enemy. If a man is to be killed, 
what difference does it make in principle whether he is killed 
before conviction or afterwards, or whether he is killed by an 
officer or a citizen ? The sole question is whether it is right to 
kill him at all, no matter what he may have done nor how much 
some people are afraid to have him around. In my opinion it 
will never do to kill people simply because we are afraid of 
them, or have some interest in getting them out of the way. 
We have no more right to use the law as an instrument of mur- 
der than we have to use a meat axe or carving knife for the 
same purpose. 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



219 



If a man is ordered to do some wicked act, he need not 
necessarily do it, nor can he plead the order received as an ex- 
cuse for what he does. Even if the state commands a man to 
do an act which is clearly immoral, unjust or inhuman, he is 
in no wise bound to obey, and if he decides to do as he is 
ordered, he should be held responsible precisely as if the deed 
had been done of his own free will. The fact must never be 
lost sight of that a man's being an officer in command, or an 
employee under orders, cannot change the nature of his conduct 
in any way. What a man does, he does of himself, and he can- 
not throw the burden of his evil doing upon the shoulders of 
some other person. That is something that cannot possibly be 
done. • The reader must again be reminded that what we call 
the state is only a certain number of men who are just like 
those whom we meet in our walks every day. The orders of 
such men can never be taken as a justification for any criminal 
action which the citizens may choose to commit. If a man 
steals or robs in his capacity as an officer, he is just as culpable 
as if the deed had been done by any ordinary individual, To be 
able to characterize an act properly, we must inquire what a man 
does and ascertain his motive, not what his rank may be nor 
who is his principal. When a man kills another deliberately, 
it is always murder, no matter what may be the position which 
the murderer holds nor the capacity in which he acts. A man 
by being elected sheriff or judge acquires not a single right, 
privilege or qualification that he did not have before the elec- 
tion. 

The broad ground should be taken that the state should 
never do what is known to be immoral or criminal, and no 
order that violates this principle can have any binding force on 
citizens. But the law does order many things that are mani- 
festly wrong. The law commands a man to aid in securing one 
who is a fugitive from justice, just as some years since it held a 
man bound to aid in returning a fugitive slave to his master. 
But I deny the right of any state to enforce such an inhuman 



220 CRIMES OF THE STATE. 

order as that. I deny the right of any man to be either the 
judge or the executioner of his fellow man. and if that claim 
proves to be well founded, it cannot be any man's duty to aid 
in sending another man either to prison or the gallows. Why 
should we raise our hand against a man who never has harmed 
us, or who perhaps may have been our most trusted friend ? 

It must be evident that if the claim that one has a right to 
exercise authority over another fails, then the claim that men 
have the right to arrest, convict and imprison their fellow men, 
must also fail. I repeat again, that trials, convictions and pun- 
ishments are things that are found only in a country where men 
are held in bondage. No free man can be tried, because he 
denies the right of anybody to exercise authority over him. A 
slave is the only man who allows himself to be brought into 
court, and finally after some delay and ceremony, taken out 
and punished. A free man would fight till he died sooner than 
allow himself to be treated like a dog. 

And, finally, there comes another question. May a master 
or a father command the one who is under him to do wrong ? 
May he compel him to commit a crime ? If he has any author- 
ity over him at all, it cannot be limited to just commands. But 
could such an order be accepted as a justification or an excuse, 
if the man chooses to obey the order and commit a crime? 
Does it excuse the servant or slave for committing a crime that 
he did so to avoid punishment from his master? I should say 
not. There can be no valid excuse of any kind for committing 
a crime, and if there were an excuse for it, it would be no 
crime. A crime is committed only where something wrong is 
done. The cause or occasion of a crime cannot be taken as its 
excuse, or otherwise we should have no crime. Every criminal 
has some reason for what he does. It is clear that every wrong 
must stand by itself and be judged entirely on its own account. 
What preceded it, or followed it, cannot affect the question of 
guilt in any respect. 

The state subsists chiefly upon crimes, immoralities and 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



221 



wrongs of various kinds. Crimes and offences are the main 
sources of revenue for the state outside of the taxes. Indeed, 
if there were no criminals, no crimes, no misdemeanors, no 
violations of law, the state would speedily go out of business, since 
it would in that case have nothing at all to do. Every fine 
levied according to law is partial confiscation for the benefit of 
the state. The state has every inducement to multiply offences 
and crimes, so as to create more business and enlarge its rev- 
enues. That has been the history of the state for centuries. 
The state — we mean the officers of the state — has every induce- 
ment to have the accused in all cases convicted, because con- 
victions lead to more costs, in most cases, and hence to large 
returns for the court officers and attendants. If a man is fined, 
there is so much more money to go into the treasury ; if the 
criminal is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he has to be 
conducted to prison, and if he is sentenced to death, he has to 
be executed, and all these things put money into the pockets of 
certain officers. As a matter of fact, the state makes every 
effort to convict the prisoner, because convictions give evi- 
dence of state power, state wisdom, state goodness and justice. 

The most expensive machinery connected with government 
is that of the courts, and what makes it worse is that the courts 
are kept pretty generally in operation. The most striking fact 
in this connexion is that the state defines crime according to its 
own notions solely, leaves all the bars down and offers every 
inducement for the commission of crime, and then punishes the 
unlucky offender if he happens to get caught. This reminds us 
of the way the Lord treated Adam and Eve. Placed just as 
those two people were, it was impossible for them not to sin, and the 
Lord must have been aware of the fact before he laid down his 
famous ordinance. Precisely so it is with criminals and the 
state at the present day. Like the spider, the state spreads its net 
artfully, and then watches to see who is the first victim to be 
caught. 

The state is not at all particular how it secures its money, 



222 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



nor from what source it comes, and in that respect it sets a very 
bad example for the ordinary citizen. It will receive stolen 
goods, or any other goods, if there is money in the business. It 
assumes that liquor selling, for example, is wrong, but it li- 
censes the traffic, and in the state of New York draws over 
$10,000,000 annually from that source alone. It condemns prosti- 
tution, especially in the cities, but in many cases it condescends 
to " regulate " the business, for pay, and for its worthy repre- 
sentatives, the police and the court officers, prostitution becomes 
a fruitful source of revenue! By the way, what models those 
policemen are, and the soldiers also in places where a standing 
army is maintained ! How much credit they reflect upon the 
state which they represent, by their conduct, particularly in 
their relations with criminals and prostitutes ! Both classes 
will be permitted to ply their trade if they will only consent 
to a fair division of the profits. The purity of the court and its 
officers, in many cases, the purity of our statesmen, the purity 
of those who pose as the watchful and dutiful shepherds of the 
people ! For shame ! for shame ! What hypocrites there be in 
this world — in all countries where the population is divided 
into two classes, those who rule and those who are ruled ! 

But of all the detestable and barbaric institutions that have 
come down to this generation from feudal times, the town con- 
stable is one ! Always an ordinary man, and sometimes a very 
ordinary man, drest in a little brief authority, with a pair of 
shackles in his hands, and a revolver in his pocket, and with the 
whole able-bodied force of the town at his command, he imag- 
ines that he is commissioned to keep the peace of the community 
and carry out his own will without let, hindrance or interference 
from anybody. That is the kind of institution a town constable 
really is. His name appears on the tail end of the ticket, when 
the nominations are made. He is just as apt to be a bad man as 
a good man, he is just as apt to be a half-witted fellow as a 
man possessed of forbearance, judgment and sense, and yet such 
a kind of person takes the place of complainant, judge, jury and 



CRIMES OF THE STATE. 



223 



executioner all in one, and in the name of the people he pre- 
serves the peace ! That is, if he feels like it, and as he feels like 
it. If the victim is a poor, harmless individual who is supposed 
to have no friends, he is very liable to attack from such a source 
as this, while the bold, bad man who is generally understood to 
be a troublesome fellow to handle is allowed, usually, to go his 
way, and do what he pleases with impunity. Woe unto the 
poor luckless individual who happens some time or other to 
have offended the town constable or the potent policeman ! He 
might better not have been born. 

I have said before, and I would like to say it loud enough 
now that the world might hear it, that it is a serious, a dreadful 
thing to be placed under arrest under any circumstances, and 
especially so if it happens before conviction of crime. If a man 
were taken out, tied up to a post and horsewhipped by the 
town constable or policeman, whenever he took it into his head 
to do such a job, the whole community would rise in rebellion 
at once, but any man, possessed of the ordinary feelings of a 
man, would rather endure such treatment than to be bound in 
chains and thrown into a dark and filthy cell at the mere option 
of some officer of the peace. People some day or other will 
open their eyes and see what such an institution means, and 
they will then understand what a monstrous proceeding an 
arrest is, and when that time comes, all such laws as these, 
relics as they are of days of bondage and barbarism, will be 
banished from our statute books forever. In this day and gen- 
eration, we do not need a town constable nor any other officer to 
keep the peace. In nine cases out of ten where we have such 
officers, they merely break the peace themselves and violate the 
rights of free-born American citizens. The town constable 
ought to be voted a back number. If the people had it to say, 
this conceited, consequential and captious autocrat would be 
deprived of his powers and privileges at once, and he would be 
allowed to drop to the ground from the ordinary force of grav- 
ity. People have imagined all along that such an institution 



224 CRIMES OF THE STATE. 

was indispensable. Vain thought! It must not be forgotten 
that not long since people thought the same of slavery and the 
whipping post— to say nothing of hanging for stealing and for 
other small crimes. Within less than a hundred years, people, 
English speaking people, believed that the world would go to 
pieces, if it did not have such things. 

What is the use of having a judge or a jury, when the con- 
stable or policeman tries the case on the spot, without the ad- 
vice or help of anybody ? He comes up to a man and says he is 
drunk, though, as often happens, the man is not drunk at all. 
However, the officer says he is drunk, and off the man goes 
towards the lock-up, dirty, filthy and forbidding as that insti- 
tution usually is. If the man hesitates, the officer curses him 
and uses slang terms of the most offensive character — and if the 
fellow still hesitates, the officer probably gives him a punch in 
the face, or he thumps him in the ribs, or perhaps he merely 
bruises his bottom with the toe of his boot. And yet if you talk 
with people about dispensing with the services of such a crea- 
ture, they open their eyes and give .one such a look of amaze- 
ment that it almost gives a person the chills. How could this 
world wag at all, if it did not have the town constable and 
policeman to keep things in order ? — they say . There is no use 
of trying to talk with such folks. The only way is to let them 
go on and grow. They may get wiser as they get older, and 
by and by they may see that in an age like this we do not need 
such a creature as a policeman, nor even a town constable. 

It is quite unnecessary to dwell upon the wickedness of the 
state and the corruptness and rascality of many of those who 
pose as the representatives of the state. That is an old story, 
and every person who reads the papers must be familiar with 
the details of legislative, judicial and executive scandals— of 
men who buy and of men who are bought, of men who sacrifice 
honor, decency and manhood for the money they expect to find 
in a job. That is an every day occurronce, and it is useless to go 
through the rehearsal again at this time. It is evident enough 

14 



THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE. 



225 



that men in office average just about like men out of office. 
Originally, demagogues and designing men generally did busi- 
ness in the name of the Lord. They now find it more profitable 
to appear in the livery of the state. 

THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE. 

In many cases we allow a man to proceed independently of 
law, as the natives do in savage lands. If a man can substantiate 
in any way the claim that he acts in defence of his person , his 
home, or his family, he can do anything he chooses, even to 
the extent of committing murder, and the law in its ordinary 
application cannot affect him. The individual in such a case 
is left entirely to his own judgment as to what he should do, 
how far he should go and where he should stop. He is a law 
unto himself ; he tries his own case on the spot, and is judge, 
jury and executioner all in one. But why should he not be 
permitted to go quite as far in the same direction where tho 
question involved is one of far less importance and only refers to 
some ordinary matter ? It is a curious fact that when a man falls 
into serious difficulty and really needs help, he gets none at all 
from the government or the state. After the trouble is all over, 
and the man gets killed, or perhaps he kills somebody, the state, 
with its officers, steps in and takes a hand in the affair. Is that 
not the way that the state usually protects its citizens ? People 
who want protection which can be depended on must protect 
themselves — and they must, besides, pay the bills of those who 
ought to protect them, but who do not. 

The state is like the dog in the manger, it will neither pro- 
tect us nor permit us to protect ourselves. In reality self -pro- 
tection is illegal and against the theory of the state, because the 
state assumes to monopolize that business itself. When a man 
protects himself, he usually violates the law. However, the 
court or the jury generally winks at such violations, from 



226 THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE. 

motives of expediency. It is a very common thing for the 
state to connive at what it would not openly approve. 

A serious question in this connexion is this : How far may 
any man go in the way of wrong-doing, and still be allowed to 
excuse himself on the plea of necessity or self-defence? Can 
there ever be any necessity, or even any excuse, for a man's 
•doing a wrong act at any time ? Or is an act that is wrong at 
one time not wrong at another time ? Can a man properly kill 
his fellow man because he apprehends danger? The practice 
goes so far now that a man may be guilty of murder, in de- 
fence of his property, and still he shall not be deemed to have 
committed any offence. In all such instances, he sits upon his 
•own case, and decides himself what ought to be done. He need 
not wait until he has suffered some harm to himself or his 
property. If he even feels himself in danger in any way, or 
merely says he felt in danger, he is held to be justified in com- 
mitting murder, the worst crime known to our laws. The law 
itself may not read that way, but the practice does. If he 
happens to detect some one in the act of stealing, or acting as 
if he meditated a burglary, and he shoots him on sight, that 
usually ends the matter, while if the same thing were done 
under other circumstances, he would likely be hanged for his 
crime. So the state commits crime after crime, merely to pro- 
tect itself — it murders, robs, imprisons, enslaves, kidnaps — and 
yet it offers no plea in justification, except its own comfort and 
protection ! But deliberate killing or deliberate robbing is a 
crime, no matter by whom it is committed, nor under what cir- 
cumstances the crime may be perpetrated. The power to for- 
give sins has not been granted by God even to the state. God 
does not deal in indulgences. 

Consider for a moment the pleas made and the motives ad- 
mitted by those acting in the name of the state. What motive 
has an officer of the state for imprisoning a man when he has 
done something that is pronounced wrong ? Usually the motive 
is one merely of protection ! But is that not carrying " personal 



THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE. 



227 



aid and comfort" rather too far? Putting a man in prison, not 
for what he has done, but what we are afraid he may do, and 
for no other reason than that we are afraid of him, is hardly 
the proper thing. But if government officers can put people 
in prison or hang them merely because they have done some- 
thing that is called wrong, or because it is feared that they 
will do something wrong, why shall not individuals have the 
same privilege ? It must not be forgotten that generally it is 
either cowardice or selfishness that prompts officers to do what 
they do in the name of the state. They fear that a man may 
kill somebody, or perhaps that he has killed somebody, and so 
they overpower him and finally knock him on the head or 
strangle him in some way — as if one murder could be made to 
cancel another murder that had been perpetrated. What can 
be more villainous than to punish a man, or in other words, to 
cause him pain and anguish in some way, simply because we 
are afraid of him? Yes, it is fear, slavish fear that fills our 
jails, our prisons, our madhouses. Usually it is nothing but 
cowardice that leads to the punishment of criminals after con- 
viction. It is well known that the state, when some wrong has 
T^een committed, is in no better condition to furnish a remedy 
than any individual would be under the same circumstances, 
but it goes on to punish, ostensibly with a view to prevent what 
might happen in the future ! 

Another reason or excuse given by the state, or rather by 
men who act in the name of the state, for punishing people as 
it does, is that the state has been offended ! But what a fiction, 
what a fraud that is ! A man steals a coat. That offends the 
state, they say. But who is the state that it is so badly 
offended ? Where does he live and what does he do ! People 
delight to talk about the majesty of the state, as if the state was 
not made of poor, cheap clay like all the rest of us. 

Another reason, and a stronger one, for the state's punish- 
ing people, is because it wants a victim, a sacrifice. The state 
is a regular Moloch and must have sacrifices made and cere- 



228 THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENCE. 

monies performed in its honor. The state, like the gods of old, 
must be appeased in some way, when it is offended. The best 
illustration of how reasonably the law operates, is to be seen 
in the working of military law. A man deserts and is finally 
caught and shot. How does this mend matters? Surely no 
good is done to the deserter, because he is dead, and no good is 
done to the army, because it has one able-bodied soldier less. 
In such a case, where does the good come in ? I really do not see. 
It is one of the many cases of deliberate murder by law, with- 
out the least sign of an excuse or justification for the deed after 
it is done. 

Finally, if a man can commit a crime merely to save him- 
self or his property, he ought to be permitted to do the same thing in 
all cases where any advantage is to be gained by his taking such a 
course. That principle is allowed in ordinary business affairs. 
A man in business avails himself of all the privileges at his 
command, whether they are just or unjust. Every man gets all 
he can, and he pays no attention to the self-evident fact that 
what he gets somebody else is prevented from getting. Men 
usually do not care how many other men become paupers, if 
they themselves only become rich. Our whole doctrine of riches 
and the practice we follow in securing them is based on the 
principles of robbery and conquest and on the violation of the 
rights of other men. It will be noticed that there is very much 
in common between the way riches are acquired and the way 
that affairs of state are managed. 

CRIMES OF THE COURT. 

A man on the bench, it must be remembered, is no better 
qualified in any way to sit in judgment on the conduct of other 
men than he would be just before being installed in office, or 
just after leaving it ; and that is the same as saying that he 
has no qualifications or gifts that we would not expect to find in 
any ordinary citizen. In what single or what particular respect 



CRIMES OF THE COURT. 



229 



does he differ from or surpass common men ? It should not be 
forgotten that a judge on the bench can commit a sin just as 
readily and just as necessarily as any other man. On what 
ground, then, can he excuse himself for sending one of his fel- 
low men to the gallows, whether that man be either innocent or 
guilty? Wherein does he differ in his conduct from an in- 
quisitor, or a member of a vigilance committee or of a lynching 
party ? It may be answered that before the judge acts, the cul- 
prit must have a trial and be convicted. Do not the lynchers, 
and the vigilance committees, and did not the holy inquisitors 
hold their trials also ? What does a trial amount to usually ? 
Simply a ceremony, a matter of form, a mere step taken to 
legitimatize iniquity that has already been resolved upon. By 
merely holding an office a man does not change his character, 
and he does not acquire any new rights or qualities. The ques- 
tion is, or should be, what does he do ? Not what authority 
does he have or what office does he hold. No man can hold a 
commission that will j ustify him in doing wrong. 

No, the judge, who, on the bench or off, before trial and 
conviction or after, sends a human being to prison or the gal- 
lows on any pretence whatever, is simply a monster. He is not 
a bit better in any way than a pirate or a highwayman — except 
that his course is more generally approved than theirs by his 
fellow man. It will be claimed for him that he does not mean 
to do wrong, but just as good a plea as that could be made for 
the robber or the pirate. It is a rare thing that any man does 
wrong, according to the standard he compares with, or the 
standpoint from which he looks at things. Was there ever a 
criminal that did not have a good, valid excuse in his own mind 
for doing just what he did? It is inconceivable that a man 
should deliberately do what he knew he ought not to do. If he 
did, he would certainly be crazy, and hence he could not be 
held responsible for his acts. 

How much better is the judge who sentences men than the 
public executioner, who in Europe is execrated above all men ? 



230 CRIMES OF THE COURT. 

The judge is practically the executioner— or if there is any dif- 
ference, it is decidedly in favor of the latter. There is no ob- 
ligation, no law even, that demands that he shall find the 
prisoner guilty. It often happens that the judge tries the case 
on his own account and finds the prisoner guilty with little proof. 
It frequently occurs that he dominates the jury by the charge he 
gives. 

When we come to study the matter and think it all over, 
considering the question in all its bearings, what kind word 
could we utter, or what extenuating circumstance could we men- 
tion in behalf of the man who, whether in an official capacity or 
not, in cold blood sentences other men to death, or perhaps to 
prison for life ? And yet there are men who follow such business 
for pay, who assume a pious mien and give moralizing sermons 
to the poor devil who in a few days, or a few weeks at most, is to 
be hurled into eternity in accordance with the orders of these 
same self-sufficient, sermonizing judges ! Such men are always 
Christians, so-called, and what they do is always done in the 
name of their Father in Heaven ! 

It must be remembered that the judge neither takes nor 
holds his office by compulsion ; and he is no more compelled to 
sentence the prisoner to death under any such circumstances 
than is the father compelled to whip his son on any occasion. 
He does what he does, as the father does what he does, because 
he feels like doing it, delights to do it, and really believes it 
ought to be done, or must be done by somebody. I speak ad- 
visedly, when I say the judge on the bench generally delights to 
sentence men, because he really believes the prisoner is guilty 
and therefore gets what he deserves. And then it must be re- 
membered that the court will not allow a condemned man to kill 
himself, because suicide would deprive the court officers of a 
tragedy that they long to take part in. That is really the 
strangest thing of all — that a man is not allowed to kill himself 
after he is condemned to death ! 

It must be remembered that the very best men this world 



CRIMES OF THE COURT. 231 

has ever had. certainly the most pious men. delighted above all 
things in seeing a witch or a heretic burn or suffer. Indeed., 
the savageness of mankind is not duly appreciated. There is 
no beast in the forest that so delights to kill and destroy, espe- 
cially if the victims belong to its own species, as the highly 
Christianized and extremely civilized members of the human 
family. Men delight above all things in blood — not because 
of their thirst, but because they love to see blood flow ! And 
woe to the poor prisoner if he happens to cross the judge in any 
way. The judge who says ten days can easily make it ten 
months or ten years, if lie happens to feel out of sorts and if ten 
months or ten years happens to occur to him. On such slender 
threads as these do the sentences of great judges hang ! It 
makes a big difference to the prisoner, but not the slightest to 
the judge, whether the sentence is for a short period or a long 
one. In either case the judge will enjoy his meals and his sleep 
as usual. He would sentence a man to death in the afternoon 
and attend a banquet the same evening. The wrath of a judge, 
especially of an English judge, is something terrible, and in that 
respect it resembles the wrath of the Almighty himself. Jus- 
tice ! Justice ! What an awful thing Justice is. in this civilized 
land and in these Christian times of ours ! Where justice is. 
there mercy is never found. I often think what a capital judge 
the devil must make ! The devil is never troubled with com- 
punctions, for the reason that he never has any. It is curious 
to notice what mild ideas we have of a hangman in this coun- 
try. It will be remembered that we twice elected to the presi- 
dency a man who had at one time been the official hangman of 
the city in which he lived, he being the sheriff of his county. 

Of course I am not speaking of any one judge, or of this or 
that man that I happen to know— I have nothing at all to do 
with men in this or in any other case, so far as this work is con- 
cerned. I am not considering the judge in the flesh as we know 
him in his daily walks, but I have in view that imaginary- 
being, the judge in the spirit, who is the type of all judges in 



232 CRIMES OF THE COURT. 

all civilized lands on the globe at the present day. I have in 
mind that death-dealing or life-saving god who holds in his 
hands the fate of men and who decides by a mere nod or a mere 
word whether the victim before him shall be permitted to live 
or shall be hurled into eternity. 

And, wonderful to tell, this business of condemning prison- 
ers to misery or death is looked upon as honorable, and the place 
is uniformly sought after by men who are eminent in the legal 
profession ! It is also curious to note that while we have ban- 
ished our wrathful, avenging God, from our minds at least, we 
still cling to the avenging judge, who is the one that is chosen 
to fill God's place for all work of this kind. 

Again, think for a moment what a serious, what a dreadful 
thing it is to judge our fellow man — to decide upon his motives, 
of which we know absolutely nothing, to determine the merits 
or demerits of his conduct, over which we have no authority 
and on which we are not in condition to give a just or fair 
opinion. A man who takes upon himself such a fearful respon- 
sibility as that — judging of another man's reasons and motives — 
ought to be an extraordinary man indeed. He ought to be more 
than human — he ought to be at least half divine. But is he ? 
Why, even the justice of the peace, our next-door neighbor, a 
most ordinary sort of man generally — he is a judge, and so far 
as his province extends, he gives sentences deciding the fate 
of men or women just like any other judge. 

On what does the judge base his decision ? On evidence. 
And what is evidence ? One of the most unstable, uncertain 
and unsatisfactory things in all this world. In this country, it 
is the mere word, the hearsay, the opinion of ordinary men, 
often unintelligent, incapable, ignorant or perhaps dishonest 
men. Quite generally the witnesses are interested either on 
one side or the other. It is a very common thing, we all know, 
for a witness to be paid well for testifying strongly on one 
particular side of the case. We do not have compurgators and 
wager of battle exactly as they had in old England many years 



CRIMES OF THE COURT. 



233 



ago, but there is not so much difference really between their 
way and. ours as many people suppose. 

Everything lies in the bosom of the judge. He can regard 
the law or disregard it ; or if the law does not happen to ac- 
cord with his notions, he can declare the same unconstitutional. 
The judge is practically the king in this country. He is the 
dernier resort in all cases of question or dispute. The judge is 
above the president, above congress, above the people, above 
God. Who ever heard of a judge being held responsible for a 
verdict he had rendered or the harm it had occasioned? His 
judgment is reversed to-day, proving how fallible he is, but he 
keeps his place and goes on with the same kind of work to-mor- 
row. In olden times people were satisfied to have one king at a 
time, but we, under our constitutional government at the pres- 
ent day, have as many kings as we have judges on the bench. 
Their name is legion, and the will, the mere will, of the hum- 
blest member of the guild is law ! A favorite method of gov- 
ernment with our Americans, is through the rulings of a judge 
— government by injunction, it is called. What is this but 
autocracy — autocracy in its most dangerous and most detestable 
form ? 

A judge's bad conduct while he is on the bench does not 
affect his standing in society after he leaves it. When he re- 
turns to private life again, he is rehabilitated and purified, and 
his character becomes as white as snow. If there is any sacred 
person in this country, it certainly is the judge. 

In theory, a judge is a mere machine, a mechanical con- 
trivance by which the laws are interpreted. He holds the same 
relation to the state now that the priest did to religion many 
years ago. But in practice it is found that the interpreter is a 
very important personage — he is the leading character in the 
play. An interpreter has the game wholly in his hands, and he 
can interpret as he likes. That is precisely what the priests do 
when they interpret the Bible. The man who interprets the 
Bible and decides upon what it means, makes the Bible. What 



234 



CRIMES OF THE COURT. 



a Bible is for ourselves, or for any man, depends wholly upon 
how we interpret it. So the judge, in practice, generally 
makes the laws — and where any question arises in regard to it, 
he always does so. It is well known that just that thing is 
what is going on continually in this country. Not the law as it 
is written, but the judge's decision is law. And what a judge's 
opinion or decision will be, the Lord only can tell in advance. 
When the judge comes to a conclusion and renders his de- 
cision, he is not a machine. A machine is governed by laws, 
rules, conditions, bat a judge never is. He is a man, an ordinary 
man, with all the feelings, frailties and failings that an ordi- 
nary man possesses. He uniformly loves his friends, his sect, and 
his party, and he hates his enemies and offenders generally with 
all the bitterness of a fanatic. He is a worldly man, and he 
deports himself on the bench precisely as we should expect that 
a worldly man would, and yet the office he fills is one that be- 
longs alone to God. I would not deny that all judges are good 
men in their way — very good indeed, as men usually go — but 
not one of them is infallible, and that fact alone suffices to 
prove to me that not one of them is fit to be a judge for other 
men. I will not speak particularly of a jury, because a jury 
trial is known to be a farce, so far as justice is concerned. 

It might be added by way of note that among the ancient 
Germans, a man was tried not only by his peers but by his 
neighbors and friends, by the community in which he himself, 
his family and his friends had always resided. There was very 
little law in those days, and consequently there was some jus- 
tice. Lawyers were not known and the judge was merely a 
presiding officer who represented the king, the government, 
and indirectly God, the Almighty. He bore in his right hand 
a staff or scepter, like the kings and the priests. He knew no 
more of the law than common people did generally. He had 
nothing to do with rendering the decision ; he merely pro- 
nounced the verdict after it was rendered by the jury or the 
assembly. In a judgment given under such circumstances, 



STATE EDUCATION. 



235 



there really was some sense and propriety. The only men who 
can with any semblance of right pronounce upon a man's 
conduct, are the community in which a man lives. 

Men now must obey the law not as they understand it, but 
as the judge understands it ; hence it is, they are always to 
obey, not the law itself, but the will of the judge. The judge is 
the real ruler or master in a constitutional government. 

Much nonsense is talked concerning the ' ' uncertainty of the 
law. " The trouble, as a general thing, is not so much with the 
law as with the men who are the interpreters of law. It is 
the " glorious uncertainty " of the judges of the law that causes 
so much trouble in this country. It must not be forgotten that 
we never know what the law is until the court renders its de- 
cision — and then it is law only till another judge takes up the 
case. And yet men are compelled to obey the law, or at least 
suffer if they do not — the law that nobody understands, not even 
the lawyers or the judges themselves. 

STATE EDUCATION. 

There is very little difference between state education and 
state religion and, to say the least, one is quite as proper and 
justifiable as the other. But what can be more tyrannical and 
more oppressive than the laws under which public schools are 
established and supported? People in this, as well as in other 
countries, are doing very much as the Spartans did, placing 
their children wholly under the tutelage, management and direc- 
tion of the state authorities — as if such officials know better what 
is wanted than the people do, and as if they are better 
able to train up the child and prepare it for future life than the 
mother is who bore and nursed the child ! I beg to repudiate 
such a false and pernicious doctrine as this. 

Does the state in undertaking to educate and develop the 
child do its work well? No, the state never does its work 
well, and it certainly does not in the department of education. 



236 STATE EDUCATION. 

It does not make, it does not even strive or aim to make, good 
and virtuous men and women. It compels the child to do 
what it does not want to do, and what in many cases is exceed- 
ingly repulsive to its tastes. In the first place the state compels 
him to attend school, whether it has ascertained that that is 
the best place for the child or not. It does not seek to learn 
what the faculties and disposition of the child best fit him for 
doing, but it compels all pupils to run through the same curric- 
ulum without the slightest reference to what the pupil may ex- 
pect to do or what it may be called upon to use in after life. 

If there is any sacred right that a parent ought to have, it 
would seem to be that of training and educating his child in 
that manner which seems to him most proper and most desir- 
able. But the state will not have things conducted in that way. 
It will allow a man to believe what he chooses and bring up his 
family in any religious faith that he prefers, but when it comes 
to the matter of ordinary school education, the state presumes 
to step in and dictate what school the pupil shall attend, what 
books he shall use, what subjects he shall study, and how much 
time he shall devote to such matters. It is true that a man may 
hire a tutor or private teacher, but he must do so wholly at 
his own expense, while at the same time he must pay a large 
tax annually to support schools and institutions in which other 
people's children, and not his, are educated. Public schools are 
not only supported by a tax upon the community in which they 
are located, but they are aided by annual appropriations that 
come immediately from the state, but which, like all other state 
funds, come from the masses of the people originally. The main 
objection to all state rule, as it works in practice, is that men 
must not only pay their own bills, but also, to a large extent, 
they must aid in paying the bills of other people. Somebody 
has said that all government is villainous. Certainly all gov- 
ernment is wicked and unjust, for it is based upon wickedness 
and injustice in the first place. 

The state, it is well known, does everything in the most ex- 



STATE EDUCATION. 



237 



pensive manner, and it is a rare thing that the best results are 
attained for the money invested. It is generally understood 
that what is everybody's business is nobody's business, and this 
is found to be the case where teachers are employed by the 
public. To have really good work in any business, the one who 
is employed should be held responsible for what he does, and 
for the way he does it, to the one who employs him and who is 
expected to pay him when the work is finished and accepted. 

The objection I make to school laws is the objection I would 
make to all laws, namely, that they attempt to make every man 
and woman fit the same Procrustean bed ; they assume that every 
one is made after the same pattern, with the same wishes, inter- 
ests, designs and capabilities — while it is well known to be a fact 
that no two people are exactly alike in all respects, and so a law 
that might be perfectly proper and desirable for one man, would 
be quite the opposite for some other man whose circumstances 
and temperament are entirely different. 

As a rule, every man should be master of his own destiny ; 
he should be allowed to choose his own course of life and direct 
his own efforts to such ends as seem to him most desir- 
able. He should not be shackled, hampered, or opposed by 
anybody or in any manner. Especially is this position true and 
sound in regard to what a man shall learn and what he shall 
have his children learn, when they happen to have reached the 
school-going age. 

In this connexion I wish to make the criticism that our 
education as we have it to-day is to a large extent valueless, and 
to a certain extent actually harmful. We have altogether too 
much education, and what is usually furnished to the pupil 
is not of the right kind. It is not practical ; it is not in any 
proper sense useful as a whole. Pupils are sent to school too 
early and they continue there too long. There are too many 
fads and notions in teaching. There is altogether too much 
higher education, and it is too often the case that the elementary 
branches have not been mastered. The teacher should teach 



238 STATE EDUCATION. 

what he knows, and he should make far less use of books than is 
now the common practice. A competent teacher should not be 
obliged to recognize any book as authority. If it is all contained 
in the books, what need is there of a master? Pupils are 
strengthening the mind, as they imagine, when it is the body 
that deserves the most attention. The great weakness in our 
schools, especially in our public schools., is that there are too 
many instructors who undertake to teach what they have never 
learned and what therefore they do not know. Teaching the 
young, and training them up for spheres of future usefulness to 
themselves and society, is not a boys' and girls' business. It is a 
mart's work, and it is a work for which not every or any man is 
necessarily fitted. What fact is more lamentably evident than 
this, that even our best teachers know very little of true, prac- 
tical life ? And if they do not know it themselves, how shall 
they be able to teach either the old or young how to live and 
do? 

The best way to educate people, beyond the elements, is to 
induce them to educate themselves, the same as the best way to 
govern people is to have them govern themselves. We cannot 
teach people, we cannot compel them to learn, but we can so 
shape things that they shall realize the importance of learning 
without being compelled. 

Education, the most important of all the affairs of life, is 
something that ought not to be farmed out to strangers and in- 
competent persons. To be a teacher of men, or of those who 
are to become men, ought to be a sacred office, and not simply 
an employment by which a living is to be gained or a sum of 
money earned. The mother is the true teacher, and under 
the parental roof the most valuable and most important part of 
the child's education should be gained. Our children should be 
kept at home, at least during their tender years, and they should 
not be turned loose in the streets, nor even sent to the public 
school. As a rule, at the public school the children learn more 
vice than virtue, and in these institutions we find plenty of illus- 



STATE EDUCATION. 239 

trations of the Bible saying, that ,; evil communications corrupt 
good manners. " 

Education is a good thing— if there is not too much nor too 
little of it. and if what is given is of the right kind. Another 
thing to be considered in this connexion is. whether the educa- 
tion that is obtained does not cost more than it is worth. 

The greatest of all mistakes that is made, in considering this 
matter of education, is in assuming that learning is only to be 
obtained in schools and colleges, while in fact only a very small 
portion of what is properly called learning is obtained in such 
institutions. The best schools even do not make scholars — they 
simply put the pupil in condition to learn and they point out 
the road he is to follow. As a matter of fact pupils learn by 
their own efforts, rather than receive instruction by the efforts 
of others. 

But education. I admit, even as we have it now. does have 
its effect upon character. It increases pride and develops con- 
ceit. It makes a man dogmatic and dictatorial. It makes him 
rebellious against authority and a lover of contentions and dis- 
putes. Xo one despises manual labor and steady employment 
more than the student just out of college. Xone are more in- 
clined to revolts against the state, none are more treacher- 
ous or more savage, when the passions have full sway, than the 
students of universities. 

Besides, our prisons and jails have among their inmates 
many highly educated gentlemen. The ranks of loafers, loung- 
ers swindlers, and cranks are being constantly recruited from 
among those who have enjoyed all the advantages afforded by 
our colleges and high schools. It is evident enough that educa- 
tion — such education as we have — does not save a man from 
ruin. It does not even furnish him with a living. Clearly 
enough, education does not lessen crime nor protect society. 
In a certain sense it increases crime and proves a continued 
menace to society. It is conceded that it developes a tendency 
to suicide. 



240 STATE EDUCATION. 

We have seen what education, together with association, 
may do. Now let us see what it does not do. Thus, it does not 
make men careful of the feelings and rights of others. It 
does not make them kind, obliging and helpful. It does not 
make them generous or magnanimous. It does not make them 
honest or truthful, or just. It gives man neither a higher, a 
happier, nor a holier aim in life. A man who is educated is 
not necessarily either a Christian man, a good man or an hon- 
orable man. The education of the present day does not con- 
cern itself with such objects. Its purpose and aim is to give 
what is called culture. It disciplines the mind, and never con- 
cerns itself about the heart. It communicates a great many 
facts, but it is not particular as to the influence which will be 
exerted by those facts. Education stops with being simply an 
acquirement or an accomplishment. It is not education in the 
proper sense of the term. It is not even discipline. Discipline 
is the thing the learner needs, but he gets very little of it in 
school. Discipline would make of him a man as well as a 
scholar. It would give him correct principles, and so direct 
and inspire him that he would follow those principles in after 
life. 

We have what are called ' ' learned men. " But learned in 
what ? Learned in that which is practical and useful ? Learned 
in the ways of truth and wisdom? Most assuredly not, as a 
general thing. Learning as it exists at the present day is too 
much a matter of show, a simple badge or sign by which those 
who are cultured are to be distinguished from those who are 
supposed to be ignorant. Like the thin coating of varnish, it 
merely covers the surface, and never touches the heart. It is 
astounding to think of the money and time expended simply to 
enable a man to call himself "educated." So much time is 
demanded for metaphysics, so much for Greek and Latin, and so 
much for mathematics, very little of which will be of service to 
the pupil in after life. All the time spent in trying to get down 
to the depths of philosophy is so much time wasted. 

15 



STATE EDUCATION. 



241 



H. T. Peck, Professor of Latin in Columbia university, feels 
impelled to make the following remark as to what education as 
we have it is doing and what it is not doing for the masses at 
the present day : ' ' The modified American of to-day is as for- 
mula-ridden as any German ever was. " The educational for- 
mula for solving problems, it may be added, is, with us, like 
the legislative formula, altogether too prominent and too com- 
mon. Education is expected to do everything— that is, educa- 
tion and legislation combined. As we legislate to make men 
happy and wise, so we educate men for the same purpose. 
People have come to believe, quite unfortunately, that educa- 
tion is not a matter of growth, but that it is something that can 
be transmitted from one to another ; indeed, that it can be 
given to any one and to all, if they will only pay for it. But as 
Prof. Peck very well intimates, you cannot educate men into 
good habits and good principles — at least, it has never been done 
as yet. 

Prof. Peck truly says : "It is just as true to-day as it was 
true 5,000 years ago, and as it will be true 5,000 years from 
now, that the vital and most important facts of life cannot be 
taught by academic tyranny. " 

"When we hear to-day that So-and-So is a university man, 
one never knows by reason of that fact alone whether this person 
is in reality a gentleman and a scholar, or whether he is only a 
sublimated type of tinker. " 

"The university," he says, "has been swamped by the 
mob. " Nothing that has ever been said is more true. It is 
well known that thousands upon thousands who have gone to 
college might better have remained at home — better for them- 
selves, better for their friends at home, better for the world, and 
better for the institution they attended. 

"People," continues Prof Peck, universally believe "that 
education in itself, and for all human beings is a good and 
thoroughly desirable possession — but there is probably in our 
whole system to-day no principle so fundamentally untrue as 



242 



STATE EDUCATION. 



this." It is " an ill-considered system which forces a half educa- 
tion on all men whether they will or no. ' 

As it is, the state wants to have sole charge of educational 
matters, when it ought to have nothing at all to do with them. 
The state even wants to edit the text books — the school histories 
especially. Our histories, such as we have had, are not satis- 
factory to the state. They do not teach patriotism according to 
the notions of our rulers. The pupil is not sufficiently impressed 
with the fact that we have " the best government in the world. " 
But according to my ideas, this is nothing to boast of, for the 
best government in the world is burdened with many imperfec- 
tions. 

Indeed, where does tyranny manifest itself in a more op- 
pressive form than it does in the laws which regulate our educa- 
tional system ? Has the teacher himself any liberty, to say noth- 
ing of the pupil or the parent? Is the teacher permitted to 
teach what he believes and knows to be true ? He might try it 
and see. He would find the earth going out from under his 
feet as if it were suffering from the shock of an earthquake. He 
would soon find that his occupation was gone — or at least that 
his salary was gone. No, a teacher would be very foolish in- 
deed to set up as an instructor on his own account, as the phi- 
losophers did in other days. He must follow the authorities — the 
text books. That is what he was hired for — and not to teach 
any of his own isms or ideas. To teach a new doctrine has 
always been heresy, and never more so than at the end of the 
nineteenth century. No man can belong to a party, unless he 
votes the ticket ; no man can belong to a church , unless he sub- 
scribes to its tenets : no man can belong to a state, unless he 
obeys the laws. Even to-day people have to be very careful in- 
deed as to what they believe, what they say, and especially what 
they teach. People will find that the state means business every 
time, and it will tolerate nothing that bears any semblance of 
nonsense — that is, nothing that is considered nonsense by the 
state. 



STATE EDUCATION. 



243 



Moreover, before the teacher can teach, he must have a 
licence. He must have the state stamp on him somewhere, or 
he cannot teach. He must have the government chalk mark on 
him, like the traveling bag that passes through the custom 
house. No other teachers are genuine. If they cannot pass muster, 
of course they cannot teach. Thousands are to-day laid up for 
repairs for that very reason — " can't get a certificate. " If 
they only had a " certificate,"' they could teach as much as they 
liked. It is the certificate that makes the difference in persons. 
It does not matter whether a man deserves the document or not, 
if he only has it. That is the way it goes in all state matters. 
Everything is cut " bias " nowadays, and material that does not 
meet the conditions is cast aside as worthless. So the pupil 
must pass " Regents, " or he is not anybody. But what is "Re- 
gents?" Answered in a few words, it is. in practice, a great 
piece of nonsense. It makes any amount of trouble and proves 
little. After the pupil has once "passed," he is redeemed for- 
ever. Everything belongs to the state ; the parent belongs to 
the state, the pupil belongs to the state and the teacher of course 
belongs to the state. What would we poor people do, if we did 
not have a state to belong to ? 

No, there is no liberty in schools nor in teaching — there 
is no liberty anywhere under the state. 

The leading criticism to be made against our present sys- 
tem of education is that it is largely machine work. Copy is 
furnished to the teacher by the authorities, and it is his duty to 
turn out " educated" pupils as nearly like sample as possible. 
There is no opportunity for originality on the part of either the pupil 
or the instructor. Nature has made boys and girls quite unlike 
other boys and girls, but the teacher runs them all through the 
same curriculum and endeavors to make one an exact duplicate 
of the other. The chief sin of education to-day lies in excessive 
classification — putting the young and the old, the stupid and 
the apt, all in the same class and compelling them to move at 
the same pace and pursue the same studies. Surely, slavery 



244 STATE EDUCATION. 

manifests itself as strikingly in education as it does in any other 
branch of our civilization. What the modern state insists upon, 
above all things, is uniformity and obedience — more particularly 
obedience. 

If men had freedom, and at the same time had wisdom and 
sense, they would see that every pupil should be educated with 
direct reference to what he proposes to do and what he hopes to 
become when he arrives at manhood. It is evident enough that 
he should not be compelled to spend years in acquiring what can 
be of no use to him when he comes to enter upon the important 
duties of life. 

In our public schools there is too much time and effort mis- 
applied, and in many cases absolutely wasted, through an excess 
of examinations and teachers' institutes. It might be added 
that, were it not for the fat jobs connected with this business, 
we would not have such things as teachers' institutes at this late 
day. There is no need of amplifying on this matter. If teachers 
understand their business, there will be no need of institutes, 
and if they do not understand their business, no institute can 
supply the deficiency. 

There is altogether too much school supervision — in fact, no 
school supervision is needed. If a teacher is fully competent, 
how can superintendence assist him ? Does the skilled artist 
need supervision? Did Rubens or Michael Angelo need a di- 
rector or adviser ? Did Christ or St. Paul, greatest of all teach- 
ers as they were, have any use for institutes or for conductors of 
any kind ? 

No, we have school supervision for three principal reasons 
only : first, to keep everybody subject to the state ; second, to 
furnish indolent and impecunious people with an easy job at 
good prices, and third, to furnish needed assistance to incom- 
petent teachers who are not qualified for their work. 

Will the time ever come when men shall take upon them- 
selves the business of teaching from some higher motive than 
simply to gain a livelihood ? Will the time ever come when the 



STATE EDUCATION. 



245 



calling of an instructor shall be something higher and nobler 
than it is? It may, but not very soon — indeed, it never will 
come till the fashion changes. Most of our education is con- 
trolled by fashion, rather than by judgment and sense. Fashion 
controls everything in civilized life. Every man must follow 
his leader, or he is nobody at all. 

In conclusion, I would add the following extracts in con- 
nexion with this subject of education : 

Education can only unfold and form — it cannot create. — 
Niemeyer. 

Education means ambition, and ambition means discontent. — 
Peck. 

For in much wisdom is much grief ; and he that increaseth 
knowledge increaseth sorrow. — Bible. 

In Sparta every man was a teacher of the boys ; every 
youth had in every man, and especially in every old man, his 
instructor. 

The highest object of education is a sound soul in a sound 
body. — Locke. 

I complain of emulation in school, because it produces 
nothing but two-legged encyclopedias. — Meyer. 

Ever only to know, ever only to heap up knowledge. 
Heavens, must all the youth be nothing but brains ? — Schultze. 

For what good generally is our much-knowing? Does it 
advance happiness in the world ? — Spencer. 

In our times, it seems to me the instruction -tree has its roots 
in the air, and its leaves and flowers in the earth, but I confess 
I would rather have this state of things reversed. — Huxley. 

Not genus-rules, but nature-laws ! not dead languages, but 
living bodies, not book-study, but observation and experiment ! 
— Preyer. 

We work to-day all too much. — Auerbach. 
A simple, quiet, contented life is properly the highest that 
man can attain.— Humboldt. 

It is not doctrine and command that has the greatest effect 



246 THE NATURE OF LAW. 

upon society in connexion with morals, but models and ex- 
amples . — Herder . 

THE NATURE OF LAW. 

What is law and what does it do ? Law is merely the say, 
the declared will or wish, of some ruler — it is his word and noth- 
ing more. Alone it effects nothing, it is nothing. It is men, it. 
is those who put the laws into effect, that do the work — of itself, 
law is powerless. We have written laws and printed laws now, 
but they are not in the least stronger than unwritten laws were 
in olden times. Whether written or unwritten, laws that are 
not put in force by the action of men amount to nothing. The 
Bible is full of commands, and our statute books are loaded down 
with ordinances and decrees which are as powerless as the paper 
on which they are printed. What use shall be made of them, 
or whether any use at all shall be made of them, depends upon 
the will of men. The Bible tells us to obey God and love our 
neighbor, but we may or may not regard this command, accord- 
ing as we choose. It all depends upon how we feel about the 
matter. 

Why should we make so many laws and have so much con- 
fusion, when it is all left to the will of individuals in the end ? 
We are continually making laws, and then we leave the people 
to enforce them as they choose. If making a law enforced it, 
that would be another matter. Why not make laws as we need 
and when we need them, and not bother ourselves at all with 
general laws that we may never want ? What does any com- 
munity want of rules or laws that were made to meet the 
case of some other community perhaps a hundred years ago or 
a thousand|miles away ? 

Law-making is comparatively a modern process, a sort of 
new discovery, not dating back much farther than the times of 
the Roman empire. Laws were made before that date, it is 



THE NATURE OF LAW. 247 

true, but there were few of them and they usually served to 
meet some particular emergency. The laws, such as they were, 
in earlier times, were engraved on the hearts of the people. It 
is evident enough that, even in this advanced age, there are 
very few laws that we really need. Laws usually do no man any 
good— as a guide in life, they are worthless. The sole social 
problem for a man to solve in this life, is how to get along 
pleasantly and smoothly with the people among whom he may 
live, and that he can learn only by observation and experience. 
The law never determines a man's character. Whether he obeys 
the laws or disobeys them, does not make the slightest differ- 
ence in his real worth. A man in state prison is precisely the 
same as he was outside of prison walls. Hence it is that no 
man, by what he may do, should ever lose any of his rights as a 
citizen. 

Laws are first developed in the breasts of men ; written law 
is nothing new in itself, it is merely an expression of what men 
have thought, and in that respect it differs not from any other 
writing. Laws are really made by men before they are brought 
out in the form of an enactment or proclamation. 

The old Roman law came under three heads : fas, which 
men considered to be pleasing to the gods ; jus, what was or- 
dered or required by men, and boni mores, what accorded with 
the apparent will of the community. All true laws are ex- 
pressions of the people's will or sentiments. Statutes are, or 
they ought to be, the demands of the people expressed in writing. 

As we have seen, a law is a mere wish, an expression of 
will, by which certain things are permitted and others are for- 
bidden. Sentient beings alone have wills ; spirits have no 
will, a log has no will, nature has no will, and hence neither 
spirits nor nature can make laws. Organized bodies, or bodies 
made up of units or individuals, have no wills, and therefore 
such bodies cannot make laws. In all cases where bodies of 
men are supposed to make laws, it is merely some individual 
assuming to represent the whole mass who reveals, enacts or 



248 THE NATURE OF LAW. 

publishes the law ; the facts are precisely the same where laws 
are assumed to be made by spirits or by the Supreme Being. It 
is well known that the platform of a party convention, while it 
is given out as the platform of the convention, or of the whole 
party, is really the work of one or two men, to which the con- 
vention or the party finally gives its assent. 

Moses was a law-giver who spoke in the name of the Lord 
and in behalf of his own people. It is evident that he published 
what he was impressed to publish, what he dreamed, what was 
revealed to him, what he saw as it were in a vision, as thous- 
ands of other students and thinkers have done since his day. 
He put into form the laws and ideas that prevailed at the time 
among his people, though perhaps they had existed in a crude 
and uncrystallized state for centuries. 

God is only the people, the mass, posited out of itself ; God 
is the people in the spirit, or in the abstract. God's laws are 
the people's laws — vox populi, vox dei — they are all moral laws 
and relate to customs of men ; they all emanate uncon- 
sciously from the people and they are promulgated by individ- 
uals for the people. Mohammed was a law-giver in the same 
way. So was Christ. All the philosophers and holy men of 
the east were those who represented both God and the people in 
the flesh. They spoke for God and the people. In the east their 
God is not our God ; he is a different God from ours ; accord- 
ing to our conceptions, he is no God at all. All his work in the 
east, especially his law-giving, is done for him by ordinary men. 
But if God is not a law-giver and a ruler, he is nothing — nothing 
more than idea, an idea imperfectly expressed or presented, 
because imperfectly understood. So Solon and Draco and Ly- 
curgus were merely law-givers. They were the interpreters, 
prophets, medicine-men for the masses of their nation. The 
laws they published were merely their wishes, their sentiments, 
and through them they made known what they considered to be 
for the best interests and the future good of their fellow men. 



THE NATURE OF LAW. 



249 



All the law-givers that the world has yet produced were just 
such men as these. 

No law is any more binding upon ourselves than is the most 
ordinary thought or wish of other men. We are not bound by 
the law, except so far as we choose to be bound by it. The 
Bible says : " Thou shall not lie," or " thou shalt not steal " — thou 
must not— that is, the law-giver or the interpreter, or prophet, or 
medicine-man, or oracle, does not wish to have it done. That is all 
there is of law taken in its fullest extent and application and in 
view of its essential characteristics. All there is of the business 
is simply this : Somebody who has no authority over us in fact, 
wants us to do this or that, or does not want us to do this or 
that, and that is all. 

It will be noticed that our state, with its state law and state 
government, is something that the world had never known, to 
any appreciable extent, up to within a century or so since. Up to 
that time no man-made law was known or recognized. The laws 
before that time came from God who was the head, the chief, 
the judge of the people. His laws were the people's laws. A 
man would have been crucified or stoned to death who should 
have been so presumptuous as to make laws for his fellow man 
in his own right and from his own finite essence. By so 
doing he would be making himself the equal of the Almighty 
God himself. Such a thing was never done, to any noticeable 
extent, before the coming of the nineteenth century. Before 
that time the greatest leader that man had known contented 
himself with being a leader, a general, or a conqueror and 
nothing more. He never presumed for a moment to be a law- 
giver. That was left for God, his prophets, his priests, his oracles 
and the medicine-men. Now, anybody can be a medicine-man 
or law-giver, if he lias the faculty of getting people to follow 
him ! 

The laws that nature makes are not like the laws that men 
make or that God makes. In fact nature neither makes nor 
possesses any laws in the proper sense of the term. Nature does 



250 THE NATURE OF LAW. 

not say "thou shalt not kill;" nature forbids nothing, com- 
mands nothing, says nothing. There is not a single one of the 
ten commandments that is in accordance with nature ; nature 
knows no crimes, no wrongs ; wmatever man is inclined to do, 
must be natural, and therefore, so far as nature is concerned, it 
must be right. Laws, all laws, divine, moral and statute laws, 
emanate from the hearts or minds of men— there is no other 
source. Laws, true laws, as we have said before, are merely 
what the people want, and what they believe to be necessary 
and proper for them. 

It must be evident enough, on reflexion, that the state, in 
these modern times of democracy and constitutional govern- 
ment, takes the place of God and dispenses entirely with his 
services as the ruler of the universe. In former ages, God did 
everything, and especially God made all laws, rules and regula- 
tions for the proper conduct of men in their relations with each 
other. God formerly was known by men in person, and was 
seen by them face to face. But later he was more retiring, 
more secretive in his habits, more mysterious in his ways. In 
former days his will was revealed only through priests, judges, 
prophets and oracles ; now the case is quite different ; there 
are no priests in the proper sense of the word, no man who 
claims to speak for God, no messenger coming from God, no 
oracles that are to be consulted in order to ascertain God's will, 
no birds whose flight is to be observed, no entrails of victims to 
be examined, as in old Roman times ; there are no signs to be 
regarded, there are no sacrifices that are considered to be nec- 
essary, and there are no ceremonies to be performed for any 
purpose or in any manner whatever. Man is supreme and God 
has departed ; man, the state, takes charge of the affairs of 
this world and God, formerly the Almighty, the omnipotent, 
the omnipresent, the Creator of us all, is now relegated to the 
shades. To use another figure of speech, God has gone out of 
business. A new dispensation has come. We have noticed this 
result in other parts of this work, and now we reach it again, 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 251 

coming from a different direction. I am not telling what should 
be, but simply what is, and what has already come to pass, now 
about the close of the nineteenth century. 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 



It is the community in which a man lives that really mates 
the law in the end — all the law does is to endorse or ratify what 
men do, in that way giving them protection. If the community 
says " enforce the law," it is done, otherwise it is not. Even the 
officers of the law are not compelled to execute it ; it is always 
a matter of will or choice with them whether they will or w T ill 
not move in any matter. People get a mistaken idea that be- 
cause a law has been enacted, it is always in force. There are 
thousands of laws, it is well known, that have never been re- 
pealed, and still they are as if they were not and had never 
been. The community has a veto power of its own that tran- 
scends even that of the governor or king. 

Could not, or would not, the community do as well as it 
does now without written law? As it is now, even with the 
statute and scripture law that we have, all the best, the 
worthiest, wisest actions that are done are those which are done 
in every community without the sanction or interposition of law. 
Without law, and in total disregard of law, men do ten thousand 
things. They act from their own free will and judgment. 
Without the law people do good, they help their neighbors, and 
conduct the ordinary affairs of life. It is well known that as it 
is now law has but a slight influence upDn conduct, and even 
that little is exerted very indirectly. The laws merely set 
the stakes and mark out lines within which men may do as 
they please. Beyond these lines they may still do as they 
please, but they must take the consequences of their action and 
must not ask for state protection. When people go beyond the 
law, the state refuses to protect them ; it even allows the com- 



252 ASPECTS OF LAW. 

munity to treat the transgressor in such cases as an outlaw and 
to pester and punish him as one would an outlaw, 

People should get it out of their heads that laws are made for 
the whole mass of the people. This is a serious misapprehension 
as to the facts in the case. Laws are always made for a certain 
portion of the people — among the ancients they were for the 
arms-bearing portion alone. With us there are no laws for slaves 
and those who are in the position of slaves — wives, children, 
foreigners, criminals, the insane and even to a large extent the 
poor also. Wives begin to have some rights, but only so far as 
they cease to be wives in the true and ancient sense of the term. 
Even in Rome, practically the country of laws, a large portion 
of its citizens did not have the protection of the law. Even the 
Plebeians were outside of law. In Athens only a small portion 
of the citizens had the benefit of the law. In Rome even, there 
were many families that were denied the privilege of religion — 
not because they were criminals, but because they were low in 
rank. They not only had no fixed laws, but they had no social 
position or privileges, and there were no magistrates to whom 
they could appeal for protection. The patron in Rome, in 
his relations with his client, was omnipotent. He was alike 
master and judge, and he could even without process of law 
condemn his client to death. The old barons in England had 
the same power over their vassals and villeins. A man who is 
omnipotent can sit in judgment any time, and he is held guilt- 
less. But what else do our murderers or anarchists do but 
condemn a man to death and then execute him if they get a 
chance ? Wherein do they differ from our officers of the law '? 
And yet we excuse one and punish the other, if he is so unfortu- 
nate as to be apprehended. 

Originally in old Rome the people did not know the law. 
Books were not then printed and read as they are now. How 
should the people know the laws, even few as they were ? The 
masses themselves did not read ; all knowledge and teaching 
came from the priests, who were the custodians of the law. So 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 



253 



it was in all countries before the invention of printing and for 
centuries after. The law was given out as a sort of revelation 
from God. or from his representative, the pope or the king. 
Laws then had some force, and men obeyed them willingly and 
implicitly. Everything in those days was done by God, or by 
the agents of God. 

As we have seen, God disappears and legislation by men 
comes to the front. We still pretend to make laws in God's 
name — but it is only a shallow pretense after all. Law-making 
has become strictly a human affair. In old Grecian times the 
Athenians invested Solon with the authority to make laws for 
the people. He represented their will. In this case Solon and 
the people alike were above God. outside of and independent of 
God. 

At first laws coming from God did not change. Now they 
come and go as the winds and the seasons do. We have one 
law to-day, and another to-morrow. Being made by men, they 
can be modified or unmade by other men. Laws of the new 
kind are made by votes — so many votes, such a law, and with- 
out votes, no law at all. Tradition, custom, ceases to play the 
part it did in days of old. The whole business is reversed and 
instead of tradition making law. it is now laws that make 
tradition. God's will is of no account— there is no God for this 
heaven-denying age of ours. The people themselves are God, or 
at least they imagine they are. 

Law has really changed its nature ; the transition from 
old to new law began with the time of the XII. Tables. New 
kinds of rights arose, and those began to have rights who had 
no rights before. Of course the only government known in 
those early times was city government, and the principle upon 
which this government came to be founded was public interest. 
Before that, it was not public interest, but religion alone that 
controlled the movements of men. Under the regime of religion 
there was one party to command and another to obey. The 
question whether such and such a thing was useful or not, was 



254 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 



not raised, but merely whether it was God's will. Under re- 
ligious government, laws were inflexible, immutable. But Solon's 
laws, even stable as they were supposed to be, were only made 
for one hundred years. 

God-made laws admitted of no criticism or discussion. But 
the man-made laws of Athens were different. The people made 
the laws, or the Assembly did, and for that purpose they met 
almost daily. Under the old dispensation the auspices and 
priests had much to do with the law ; the opinion of the king, 
the priests, the sacred magistrate, had a powerful influence. 
There was but little voting under that regime. But under the 
new system, the Assembly voted on all questions. The evident 
desire was to ascertain the opinions of all. Voting settled 
everything. Hence government changed its character entirely — 
its functions came to be mere ceremonies. Government being 
of men for men became purely a human affair. 

But can the people make itself equal to God, and especially 
can it be done by that small portion of the people by whom the 
whole body is controlled ? Can the people by their vote, can the 
king by his nod make that right which is evidently and unmis- 
takably w r rong ? Or is there no such thing as right or wrong out- 
side of public will, or public opinion, and can wrong be measured 
or defined only by voting? Shall numbers alone decide 
what is just and proper to be done ? It is clear enough that 
if things be right, they must be right before the law declares 
them to be such ; so, how much stronger does the ratification 
by the law-making body make the case ? 

Is it through the medium of the law and the intercession of 
the state that advancements and improvements are made ? No. 
rarely, if ever. Law in itself is always conservative in its 
nature ; it is opposed to changes and to advancement of all 
kinds. All our great thinkers rebelled against law as it stood 
in their time. Where law is in force, and where doctrines, 
creeds, and constitutions prevail, there can be no improvement, 
no advancement. Christ, Luther, Galileo, Harvey, in fact, all 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 



255 



original thinkers were opposed to the law and the doctrines of 
their times. All great movements are made through the in- 
strumentality of revolutions — through rebellion against the laws. 

Men have ceased to worship the Bible, and to a large extent 
they have ceased to worship God, but for the law and the 
officers of the state, men still"have that holy reverence which 
formerly they bestowed upon God and the scriptures. Moral 
law, statute law and the constitution are as much objects of 
worship to-day as God was in the Middle Ages. Formerly we 
did not dare to inquire whether the Bible was right, or really 
whether it was the Bible or not — the book had come down to us 
from the past and was held to be infallible. That answered all 
questions and cut-short the argument at once. Scriptum est — 
that was sufficient. Some such place the moral code and statute 
law holds among us to-day. If it is declared and known to be 
law, that ends the matter. To ask whether it is just or correct, 
is impertinent, and to repeat the question and raise objections, 
is treason. We are poor, humble, feeble creatures, and it is not 
proper for us to raise doubts over a matter that our superiors 
have already settled. All there is left for us is to obey — obey 
the law always, and thereby save pain, trouble and disgrace, and 
finally go to heaven. To disobey a law of the land, is not only 
illegal, but immoral. Men must obey the law — that is the cus- 
tomary plea of the coward and the slave. It may be right to 
obey the law, I am not going to dispute that - right as we under- 
stand the matter in this generation. But to obey is what any 
coward or any slave can do, and usually does do. To obey is no 
proof of any man's goodness or greatness — rather otherwise. 

What a wonderful thing indeed is the sanction of the law — 
that is, to have the sanction and endorsement of men that we 
happen to know, and perhaps despise, men, no doubt, of just such 
flesh and blood as ourselves, and possibly not half so good— 
what do we, what does any man, want of the sanction of law ? 
It is at best only a label, and it is worth no more than any ordi- 
nary label. When you emerge from the custom house with your 



256 ASPECTS OF LAW. 

baggage after it has been examined by the inspector, this sanc- 
tion of law is nothing but a chalk mark on your trunk or travel- 
ing bag. Indeed, what do we want the sanction of law for? 
We know our own business, or at least we ought to know. It is 
the height of impudence for the state, or a few common mortals 
acting in the name of the state, to insist upon their right to 
sanction what we happen to be found doing ! If we make a 
mistake or commit a blunder, we are the ones to suffer from the 
effects of our own action. If we hurt somebody ; we ought to 
settle the matter with him — but the state will not allow things to 
be done that way. That would be compounding a felony, 
which, in the eyes of the state, is one of the worst things that a 
man could possibly do. 

And remember that in all these cases where complaint is 
made and the law is put in force, it is some ordinary or perhaps 
obscure individual who takes the initiative, sets himself up in 
judgment on our case, and finally puts the mysterious machin- 
ery of law in operation, and perhaps lands us in prison at last. 
These informers or complainants are, for the time being, and in 
that particular case, really the state itself. Suppose it is a case 
of Sabbath-breaking that we are charged with, and a complaint 
is made. In that case where is the state, who is the state ? 
It will be noticed that the business is started by an individu al 
who is no officer at all, one who really has nothing to do with 
the state, and the matter is finally adjudged and settled by six 
of our peers ( six men possibly as good as we are, but no better ) 
or by a justice of the peace, another ordinary person no better 
than ourselves. Such men are the state — the constable, the mag- 
istrate, the complainant, the witnesses, all ordinary people com- 
ing from the common walks of life. Away with such judges 
and such a bogus state as that ! It is a clear case of imposition 
and nothing else. I am ready to submit to one who proves him- 
self holier and better than myself, but unfortunately I have 
never came across such a man yet. 

It will be remembered that any one of the three kinds of 

16 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 257 

law — moral, religious and statute law— is just as much a force- 
law as the other, and one is just as much a nullity as the other, 
so long as it is not enforced, and whether it is put into 
operation at all or not, depends entirely upon the temper of the 
people. It will be noticed, too, that when we punish people for 
not observing religious laws as we understand the obligations 
they impose, we persecute the offender precisely as men did in 
the Middle Ages. The complaint we make is that they do not 
observe the mandates of our God as we understand them, and 
that is precisely what the inquisitors did in the case of heretics 
some hundreds of years ago. And what more or less do we do 
with people who do not obey our statutes as we think they 
should be enforced ? These people against whom we make our 
complaint may have had nothing to do with making the statute, 
and may have conscientious scruples about the propriety of 
doing what the statutes demand. Nevertheless, as we are the 
doctor and have the power, we insist upon having these people 
take our medicine or suffer the consequences of incurring our 
displeasure. Again we see that tliere is no radical difference be- 
tween 'persecution and prosecution, and when we prosecute men, 
simply because they do not choose to do as we do and as we 
want them to do, we persecute them. In the days of the In- 
quisition they tortured the offender with the rack and machin- 
ery of that character ; at the present time we put the enginery 
of law in operation and torment a man through that instru- 
mentality. It did not require much evidence, in the times of 
the Inquisition, to have a man accused, and when a man was 
accused, it was about the same thing as to be found guilty of 
the offence charged. Is the experience materially different as 
matters go in cases at law at the present day ? Let a man do 
what he chooses or let him not do at all, he is still liable to be 
accused, and as such to suffer all the torments that an accusation 
in law usually involves. But a man who views such matters 
in a fair light and a candid manner must be able to see that we 
have^no more reason to interfere with a man's conduct than we 



258 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 



have with his belief. His conduct, it will be remembered, is the 
result of his belief. We are coming to be tolerant in regard to 
a man's religious belief, why should we not also be tolerant 
with regard to a man's conduct in the ordinary affairs of life ? 
If we do not enforce religious law as laid down in our Bible, the 
highest authority known to civilized man, why should we seek 
to enforce the laws laid down in our statute books, which we 
know are the work of ordinary fallible men, and generally very 
selfish and designing men at that. 

Moral law, as we have it now, is a later law than religious 
law and, so far as we are acquainted with it, dates back hardly 
beyond Israelitish times. The Greeks knew little of law of any 
kind, and their knowledge of moral law was certainly very lim- 
ited. They did not have any such ideas as we have of right and 
wrong, of justice and injustice. Their court was continually in 
session, and it settled questions as they occurred. They knew 
little, if anything, of general laws, such as could be made ap- 
plicable at all times and in all places. 

But where do we get the right to enforce our ideas of 
propriety upon other people ? If we have any right at all, we 
have an unlimited right ; if we can determine what every 
man may do, we can also determine what every man should do ; 
and if we have that right in one case, or in one department of 
life, we have it also in every other case and every other depart- 
ment. The result of such a theory as this would be that no- 
body would have anything to do but just what everybody be- 
sides himself wanted him to do. Everybody would be the mas- 
ter of everybody but himself ; and he would also be the servant 
of everybody but himself. If the temperance man has a right 
to enforce the prohibitory law upon others, has not the liquor 
dealer an equal right to enforce his ideas of free indulgence in 
strong drink ? Who is the man living since Christ was crucified 
who shall presume to say unto men : " This is right and this is 
wrong ; this you must do, and that you must not do ? " Who is 
the presuming fellow, we would like to know ? 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 



259 



No, I am tired of hearing the changes rung upon the law ! 
the law ! — and nineteen hundred years ago or less Christ was 
tired in the same way. He cared little about the law, and fre- 
quently transgressed it himself. He believed in good men and 
good deeds, and good men and good deeds are better a thousand 
times over than all the laws in the world. As we have seen over 
and over again, law in itself is powerless, valueless. Indirectly, 
it has some effect, but directly it has none. Indirectly, the law 
makes bad men, but it rarely makes good men. If we had not 
so many laws, it is certain we should not have so many trans- 
gressors of the law, and if we had no law, we should not have 
any transgressions. If we had no law, people would be as the 
savages are. They would know no wrong and hence would do 
no wrong. It is well known that we have a thousand times as 
many transgressions now as they had a few centuries ago, sim- 
ply because we have a thousand times as many statutes and or- 
dinances. The savages have no criminals, because such a thing 
as a crime among them is not known. Law, instead of serving to 
promote justice, is often an obstacle placed in the way of justice. 
Law trammels men and prevents them from doing what their 
own judgment and better feelings would prompt them to do, 
when the occasion comes that requires action. 

No, let us cease to talk about law — let us rather talk about a 
good, honest and manly people, whose conduct originates in 
the sentiments of the heart and is not the forced production of 
law. It must be remembered that the culprit, the one whose 
ideas of what he wants to do differ from those of people who 
imagine they know what he ought to do, is usually as 
good as anybody, so long as the law does not come down 
upon him with its crushing, overwhelming force. Law 
never made, never will make, any man good. It has been 
tried and tried a thousand times, and in every case it has failed. 
Yet people will go on and deceive themselves with the absurd 
idea that by passing a great many good laws, we will have by 
that means alone a great many good people ! But is that the 



260 ASPECTS OF LAW. 

fact ? Look around you and see where it is and how it is that 
the laws passed last winter, or the winter before, or the laws 
passed ten years before that, ever made a single man better than 
he was. Indeed. I do not understand that our legislators- 
claim to be either angels or evangelists ; they do not pretend 
for a moment that their laws are reformatory in character. 
Laws are like our prisons and jails, not instituted to reform but 
to punish people. The laws have a tendency to make people 
worse rather than better. The whole world knows that the 
laws serve knaves much more effectually and more frequently 
than they do honest men. The laws set out landmarks and 
blaze a course inside of which rascals can do as they please, 
It must not be overlooked that scoundrels are the ones who 
chiefly enjoy the benefits of our laws ! A man who behaves 
himself and never comes before the court has no occasion to ask 
for the protection of the law. Rascals are the ones who usually 
invoke the aid of the law to enable them to carry out their 
wicked schemes. It must not be forgotten that all the rascals 
are not in state prison. By far the largest share of them never 
get as far as that. They are careful observers of the require- 
ments and forms of law. A man may be a first class villain 
and still maintain the reputation of being a clever and even a 
very respectable gentleman. Is there any wicked scheme that 
the law-makers are not ready to countenance or defend, either 
directly or indirectly? How would usurers, the trusts, the 
monopolists amass their riches, if it were not for the aid or 
protection of the state ? Even the tyrant goes according to law, 
and if the law does not suit him, he has it made as he wants it, 
and that is precisely what influential rascals are doing to-day 
under every constitutional government in the world. They can 
well afford to observe the requirements of the law. when they 
take pains to have it made as they want it. 

In my humble judgment, law is the most diabolical con- 
trivance ever invented by man. Next to war. in its terrible 
efficacy for evil, is law. In thousands of cases, written law is 



ASPECTS OF LAW. 



261 



only an endorsement of the wicked designs of certain bad men 
who have sufficient influence to control legislation. Any crime 
that man could possibly conceive of can be legitimatized by 
securing the passage of a law. An act that would be wilful 
murder, if not sanctioned by law, becomes a perfectly harmless, 
if not meritorious, affair if it has the sanction of the legislature. 
What would be highway robbery if committed without the 
sanction of law, becomes an ordinary business transaction, if the 
perpetrator has the statute on his side. In nine cases out of ten, 
it is well known that a charter granted to a few men called 
a corporation, is merely a licence to them from the state to 
rob the people at will. And the law works both ways. If it 
makes good that which is bad, it also makes a crime of that 
which, without the law, would be considered perfectly inno- 
cent. Is there anything that our legislature could not make a 
misdemeanor ? Is there any crime that it could not condone or, 
perhaps, ratify? It cannot be that people have forgotten what 
Tweed did some years ago. When the law did not suit him, he 
had it modified, and if there was no law to meet his require- 
ments, he ordered one made to fit his particular case. Henry 
VIII. did precisely the same thing over and over again. If he 
could not legally divorce a woman that he had tired of , he had a 
law passed to meet the emergency. Nothing in this world is 
easier or more simple than to have a law passed, if you only 
have the ' ' pull. " The villains who ruled Paris during the 
Reign of Terror understood to perfection just how much could 
be done through the instrumentality of laws. In 1794 Robes- 
pierre got a law passed providing that the great committee 
should not be responsible for its action. In this way it could 
condemn without evidence any man that it chose, and the result 
was that in a little over two weeks 1.285 victims fell under the 
keen edge of the guillotine. 

Good as the Bible is, and powerful as it is supposed to be, 
•does it ever make people good, with all its laws and ordinances ? 
Does printing the words "Be good "ever make a man good? 



262 



THE MAKERS OF LAW. 



There is no record of any such result from any such cause. 
Men do good only because they are good, and if they were not 
good, they would not do good. If good laws make good people, 
with such a Bible as we have we should have nothing but good 
folks. 

THE MAKERS OF LAW. 

There is. in this country, a prevalent belief that the people 
make the laws, but in reality our people have no more to do 
with making the laws of their country, or of their state, than 
they have with making the laws of England or France. The 
fact is that laws are usually made in spite of the people, and in- 
stead of being what the people want, the laws are often the very 
thing that the people do not want. It is well known that what 
this or that man wants, what Mr. Brown or Mr. Smith wants, 
for instance, is never considered by legislators for a moment. 
The whole business is settled by some men, or perhaps by a set 
of men, in the legislature, or perhaps by a man or set of men out 
of the legislature. The whole matter is generally determined by 
the party leaders who happen to have the controlling power at 
the time. 

What greater fallacy can be imagined than the one involved 
in the assertion that the laws in any sense, in a representative 
government, are made by the people ! The fact is well known 
that laws are frequently made against the solemn protest of the 
people, or at least of a considerable portion of the people. Less 
and less, in this country, do the people retain any control in such 
matters. It is true the people occasionally have something to 
do with selecting men who may have something to do with leg- 
islation, but generally there their power ends, and with it their 
interest in the making of laws also ends. 

For instance, how does a village or city get its charter, the 
fundamental law by which its affairs are to be governed ? What 
have the common people to do with determining the provis- 



THE MAKERS OF LAW. 



263 



ions which that charter is finally found to contain ? We are all 
aware that no one save a favored or select few ever have the 
slightest idea of what the charter contains until it finally re- 
ceives the signature of the governor, and, having become a law. 
is published in due and proper form. 

Really and practically the legislature takes the matter en- 
tirely out of the hands of the people in all such cases. And who 
are the men that constitute the legislature and who make the 
laws and rules by which we are to be governed in all the ordin- 
ary affairs of life ? They are men who usually are entire stran- 
gers to us, and they have no more interest in our welfare and no 
more concern about our success in life than the same number of 
men would have had if they had been chosen from Canada or 
South America. We all know very well how it is in New York 
and other great cities. Politicians are constantly legislating at 
Albany, not only for cities but the country, in such a manner as 
seems to them most likely to serve their own interests and the in- 
terests of their party. What the wishes of the people at large 
would be, is a question that of itself gives them no serious con- 
cern. 

Let us consider the matter of charter-making still further. 
This document, with its multitudinous conditions, provisions and 
penalties, finally becomes a law. The whole business, as we well 
know, is managed in its inception by some one who has an axe 
of his own to grind. He wants some particular clause inserted, 
some new office created, or perhaps he wants some offensive 
clause removed from the old charter. It is all elaborated and 
worked over at home, and then it is sent to Albany, there to be 
placed in the hopper and eventually, if possible, run through the 
mill. If those who have charge of the business happen to have 
influence enough, if they are ingenious and politic, if they have 
sufficient means at their command and the requisite amount 
of tact and perseverance, the charter is certain in due time to 
become a law. Otherwise the project, no matter how well con- 
ceived nor how beneficial it might prove to humanity, is just as 



264 THE MAKERS OF LAW. 

certain to fail. This is the kind of self-government vre have in 
America, and in this way and no other do the people make the 
laws. 

Let ns stop a moment further to enquire what sort of people 
our community sends to the legislature to make our laws. In 
ordinary affairs, if a man is sick and we want him cured, we 
send for a doctor, a man who understands the nature of rem- 
edies and the best method of applying them. If we have a 
case to try in court, we send for a lawyer, a man who is sup- 
posed to be learned in the law. a sharp practitioner who can 
make black appear white and crooked ways seem straight. If 
we want bread baked, we send for a baker, and not for a stone- 
cutter, and if we want a house built, we send for a carpenter, 
and not for a barber — and so on through the long list of trades, 
businesses and professions. But how do we do when it is good 
laws that we want made ? Do we follow the foregoing whole- 
some rules in that case ? Are we uniformly particular about 
the men we select for such a peculiar and important business? 
And do we ascertain in the first place whether they are precisely 
the men that we wish to represent us in the law-making line ? 
No, it is just the opposite course that we pursue. We select for 
this delicate and peculiar task often the very crudest material 
that the country affords, or. to speak more accurately, we allow 
such men to choose themselves. They are too often men of 
simply a negative character — men with no remarkable gifts or 
special qualifications of any kind. Very often they are men who 
never had character enough to do anything positively good at 
home. Of course such men are uniformly popular men and. 
when they are put up for office, they generally run well. Those 
are the men that the country seems to hanker after, and if 
there is a nice office to bestow, and especially a seat in the legis- 
lature, these are the fortunate gentlemen that are pretty cer- 
tain to be chosen. These are the men who are sent to the Capitol 
to settle the policy of a state and determine the destiny and 
direction of a people ! Perhaps they are quite unable to man- 



THE MAKERS OF LAW. 



265 



age their own private affairs with success, and yet they are 
called upon to make laws for millions. This is strange, passing 
strange, is it not ? 

Perhaps not one legislator out of ten, especially in Congress, 
is familiar with the history of peoples, or has a thorough appre- 
ciation of the probable effect upon the country of the legislation 
which is contemplated. Too often legislatures go on from one 
mistake to another, sometimes voting according to the dictates 
of some party leader, and sometimes following their own par- 
ticular interests or their own peculiar fancies. In all legisla- 
tive bodies, farmers are called upon to legislate upon banking, 
of which they know absolutely nothing, and so lawyers lay 
down rules for the guidance of military men, doctors legislate 
upon commerce, and merchants are expected to fix rules by 
which tradesmen are to be governed. Each one of these men 
may be capable enough in his own particular sphere, but how 
shall they vote intelligently, not to say wisely, on matters of 
which they have no practical knowledge whatever? 

It is a well known fact that judges in our courts are always 
supposed to base their decisions upon principle, and they never 
allow themselves to be governed in their utterances or actions 
either by personal interests or by partisan prejudice. To a large 
extent the same is true of officers in the executive branch of 
our government. But how is it with our makers of law ? Do 
they legislate uniformly upon the basis of honor and principle ? 
There is indeed no need of legislating in order to establish a 
principle, for this is already settled by a higher authority than 
any legislature. No body of this kind could invent or discover 
anything really new in the domain of justice and propriety. No, 
legislators do not busy themselves with discussions over the 
justness or fitness of things. The considerations which concern 
them are of an entirely different character. The questions that 
chiefly disturb them are those of party policy or personal ag- 
grandizement. The leading object which they have in view is 
to serve themselves first and their friends and party afterward. 



266 THE MAKERS OF LAW. 

In other words, their principal business as legislators is to have 
their own axes ground. 

Our laws are not founded on the eternal principles of truth 
and justice— if they were, there would be no need of changing 
them so frequently. No, laws, as a rule, are mere instrumen- 
talities through which individual members, or the party in power, 
are enabled to carry out their schemes and accomplish their 
purposes. And just so long as law-makers continue to steer 
clear of everything which is manifestly just and right, so long 
must society be composed of two parties, unfeeling despots on 
one side, and miserable slaves on the other. We might add 
that in all Mohammedan countries, and eastern countries gen- 
erally, the case is different. Their laws are founded upon their 
religion, and such a thing as statute law not based upon divine 
law may be said to be a thing unknown among these people. 
For Mohammedans the Koran is not only their Bible, but it is 
also their book of law by which their every-day life is supposed 
to be governed. 

And here we might enquire, what laws ought to be en- 
acted ? That depends upon circumstances, but in any case they 
ought to be few in number. Besides, there should be a divid- 
ing line between what should be embraced under the head of 
the state law, and what under the head of law supposed to be 
peculiar to a community. In the community, law, no matter 
how made nor what its origin, may take cognizance of the habits 
and conduct of individuals, even without direct reference to the 
interests, needs or demands of community. But the state is an 
organized body, a sort of corporation formed for a specific pur- 
pose, and it has no right to go beyond its own peculiar province . 
The state resembles a ministry or a representative body, whose 
sole mission it is to do certain work and go no farther. It is not 
the mission of the state to make laws for the people, especially 
law as it is commonly understood. The people should make 
their own laws, so far as law may be found to be necessary. 
The state may make certain rules, by-laws or regulations that 



THE MAKERS OF LAW. 267 

will enable it to perform its duty and complete its task, but that 
is all. The state should concern itself with but few things, and 
these mostly such as come under the head of foreign affairs or 
commercial relations. Internal affairs and domestic matters 
should be settled entirely by the communities themselves. 
Where questions arise between two communities, they might 
be settled by some court, some council, or some arbitrating 
body. 

As I have repeatedly said, men have neither place nor use 
for any governor or master. But in practice, the state is noth- 
ing if it does not play the part of a ruler. Its chief aspirations 
are toward centralization of power, and its favorite role is that 
of a conqueror. Like the true sovereign, it rules always from the 
stand-point of its own interest or from that of the party that 
happens to control its affairs. It rarely troubles itself about the 
best interests of the whole people. The state knows no people 
save those who favor its schemes and are ready to aid in carrying 
out its own selfish purposes. 

Those laws which are to regulate the conduct of men w^e 
should not expect to find in our statute books, but rather in our 
scriptures or in the writings of our best men — books like those 
of Confucius or Mencius, or the Koran or the sacred books of 
India. The conduct of men is something that should not come 
under the rule of the state. It should rather be judged and de- 
cided upon by the community in which a man lives, where his 
character and worth are fully known. It is well understood 
that in old German times, and also among the Franks, they had 
no regular law-making body, and hence they had but few 
laws, and those were not written. There were assemblies of 
free men, and later on Councillors of the King. These held 
court and settled questions as they arose, reserving nothing to 
themselves for experiment or speculation. There was a German 
common law which was very much the same as German com- 
mon sense or German ideas of propriety and right, and with them 
this was the law that regulated the conduct of men. Their 



268 



WRITTEN LAWS. 



law was merely the crystallized form of German notions of right 
and wrong. Of policy they knew little, and for it still less did 
they care. English common law, the highest and best of law, 
in every sense, was a development of precisely the same charac- 
ter as the German. It embodied the wisdom of past ages, and 
gave evidence of what the men of that time believed to be just 
and good. 

WRITTEN LAWS. 

It is agreed on all sides and by all authors that countries 
uniformly have too many laws. Laws everywhere are greatly 
in excess of the wants of the people. Too many things are or- 
dered and too many things are forbidden. The laws ought to be 
a plain expression or simple embodiment of the sentiments of 
the people, but instead of that it is the aim of our law-makers to 
control or nullify public sentiment. Laws, as a matter of fact, 
are not made for the people or by the people as a whole. Laws 
have long since become merely an instrument through which 
dishonest and intriguing politicians carry out their base designs. 
Law as it is at the present time is an engine of evil ; it is the 
fruitful source of alarm, the medium through which a vast 
amount of misery and suffering is brought into this world. 
All law, whether it is moral, religious or statute law, implies 
slavery. Law is always a fetter, a chain that binds men and de- 
prives them of freedom. 

In the infancy of a community or of a republic, when the 
people are few in numbers and they are not rich and strong, 
they assemble in bodies to express their wishes and declare their 
views. So it is still done to a limited extent, in the town meet- 
ings of this country, and so it was done to a much greater ex- 
tent in the town assemblies of New England in early days. In 
those times, there could be found something that bore the sem- 
blance of democracy. Then the people, or some of them at 
least, did have something to saj', and what they said had a 



WRITTEN LAWS. 269 

perceptible effect upon the result. But such days have mostly 
gone by, and the practices that prevailed then have mostly dis- 
appeared now. Legislation is now in the hands of a few, and 
a very few at that. The wants and wishes of the people are 
things that cause very little concern to their rulers. Public 
sentiment is defied, and those whose duty it is to represent the 
people usually represent no one but themselves. 

It cannot be too often repeated that all laws should be local. 
The laws that might well apply to one people or one community 
might not, and probably would not, apply equally well to any 
other. Laws should be made for people simply and solely to 
meet their special case, and it is unjust that they should be 
hampered with laws and rules that could with propriety apply 
only in some other community. Neither should they bear any 
of the expenses caused by the making or executing of such 
laws. 

Let us take a closer view of the situation in some particular 
community. Of what use will written laws be found to be in 
any such group ? Do they make the path of duty any plainer or 
the obligations any stronger by being written and published? 
Certainly not. The only true law after all is the will of the 
community, and the man who is born and brought up in such a 
community knows as a part of his early education just what 
is deemed to be right and what is wrong. And the stranger 
when he is admitted as a member will soon learn the same 
thing in some way. The law ought to permit every man to do 
just that thing which his teachings have led him to believe 
to be right. He ought not to be troubled to enquire what is 
written and what is published, for that can have nothing 
at all to do with the right and wrong of the case. People in 
their early history never have written laws, and it is well known 
that they get along better with the ordinary affairs of life than 
their more civilized brethren. The troubles that come from 
written laws are the exclusive inheritance of cultured people. 
Their difficulties arise mainly from the effort that is continually 



270 



WRITTEN LAWS. 



made by people who wish to ascertain just how far the law will 
permit them to go in a direction which they know to be wrong. 

It is to be observed that we first make bad laws, and then 
we get up various counter-irritants and remedies to prevent 
these laws from doing too much harm. We pass laws to make 
a few men rich, and then we pass other laws to provide for the 
many who are made poor by such unfair means. We make 
laws that are certain to develop criminals, and then we make 
poor-houses, asylums, prisons, and jails in order to furnish 
quarters more or less comfortable for those that we have 
occasion to send there. Then, too, we have "Industrial Aid" 
societies to furnish clothing for the naked, and "Legal Aid" 
societies designed to defend the poor and helpless who are 
wronged through the instrumentality of the wicked laws that 
have been enacted. This kind of compensation, this building 
up in one place what we have torn down in another, is going 
on among us continually. There is an indefinite amount of 
quackery in legislation. 

Really, what useful purpose do written laws serve? Are 
written laws found to be necessary in schools, in families, in 
churches, in societies, in manufacturing establishments, in large 
corporations of any kind? The answer must be, no. Even in 
this highly cultivated and very progressive age, written laws 
have not yet put in their appearance in these places. On the 
other hand there is an unwritten code which every man and 
woman understands, and which enables him or her to decide in 
any case just what must and what must not be done. Even the 
child at a very early age learns the plain provisions of that simple 
code. 

And what does legislation do for us, this legislation which 
receives so much of our attention and which costs the country 
so much hard-earned money yearly ? Does legislation suppress 
crime ? No, it rather developes crime and multiplies the num- 
ber of our criminals. Does it feed the hungry ? No, it turns a 
deaf ear to the entreaties of all such people, and demands their 



WRITTEN LAWS. 271 

last dollar, should it happen to be due to the state for taxes. 
Does it protect the weak and aid the friendless ? No, it lets the 
weak and friendless take care of themselves, and the only single 
inducement that it holds out to such unfortunate creatures is a 
good bill of costs, should they decide to go to law in order to 
find out what they can obtain through the medium of courts. 
But it is pretty well known that there is no great amount of 
satisfaction to be obtained by any one, especially the poor, 
through the medium of a common every-day lawsuit. 

In business life, in our homes, in our societies, in all of our 
ordinary relations with each other, we never need any new law, 
any new rule of action or method of procedure. What is recog- 
nized as right and just this year, will hardly be considered to be 
just the opposite one or ten years hence. Why should not the 
same principle apply in the case of our legislators ? I have only 
to repeat that it is not in their power to convert darkness into 
light, nor can they by any sort of manipulation change a dis- 
honest act into a worthy one. That is one of the ten thousand 
things that even a legislature cannot do. Legislatures cannot 
change anything ; in this respect they are as helpless as the babe 
in the cradle. The laws of nature and of nature's God are un- 
alterable. A thousand legislators could not possibly change one 
of them. Then why should they attempt it ? It should be borne 
in mind that legislators do not really change or amend laws ; 
they simply make new laws to replace old ones. Every new law 
is revolutionary, because it tears down what had been built up 
before. To change or amend a law, or anything else, is to des- 
troy it. To change a number is to get an entirely new number. 

It must be evident enough that in the domain of reason, 
right and justice, legislatures have absolutely no power to 
change anything. But I am willing to concede that if you 
throw reason and justice to the winds, and let brute force alone 
rule, then legislatures, which have the armed power of the coun- 
try at their command, can do a great many things. Let there be 
no question on this point : Legislatures are absolutely powerless 



272 



WRITTEN LAWS. 



to establish what is right and what is wrong, and knowing their 
weakness, they never make any attempt in that direction. Their 
work lies wholly in the domain of what they are able to do 
through power ; and what they ought to do, and what they ought 
not to do, are questions that do not concern them. This is the 
phase that legislation presents to the world in every civilized 
country on the globe. Again, legislation is merely an expression 
of the wishes of men who decide to do what they want done, 
rather than what they know ought to be done. Legislators 
change laws this year that they made last year, not because last 
year's laws were bad or inapplicable, or because this year's laws 
are wiser or better, but simply because there is more profit to 
them in the change. Is not that about all there is of legislation 
in practice, here or elsewhere ? 

The case is precisely identical with a change in fashion. 
Last year's hat may be, and no doubt is, just as good a hat as this 
year's hat in every sense — but unfortunately it is last year's hat. 
If last year's hat were in fashion this year, there would not be so 
many hats sold, since many old hats would be worn. The 
change is made simply because there is money in it, and so it is 
in legislation. Changes are made there, as in fashion, merely be- 
cause there is money in it. A new law takes the place of an old 
law simply because those who have an interest in the change 
have the power to repeal the one and enact another in its place. 

There is such potency in laws, and they are so exceedingly 
convenient for those who happen to be in the ascendancy, that 
we have laws and by-laws for every trifling action or operation 
in which a man may engage. There is scarcely anything that a 
man is allowed to do, unless it is done at a time and in a manner 
prescribed by law. He must keep time in all he does, like a 
soldier who is marching in the ranks. If he steps at all, he 
must be sure that he steps in accord with his comrades. He 
must have authority for every movement that he makes ; no 
man must do anything without permission. Really, there is in 
this country no freedom for any one. Every man is labeled. 

17 



WRITTEN LAWS. 273 

He is either this thing or that, and he belongs either in this 
place or that. A man in this world, in this highly enlightened 
age, has little or nothing with which to bother himself — except 
the taxes. The state does everything for him — only it forgets 
to pay his taxes. But is this all right, is it the best thing for 
the individual or the state? There can be but one answer to 
this question, and that is emphatically, no. When the time 
comes that men have no further occasion to care for them- 
selves, they soon get out of practice and become feeble and help- 
less. The best way is to have everybody make a business of 
looking out for himself. Every man should learn to stand upon 
his own foundation and depend chiefly on his own wisdom and 
strength. In that, and in that alone, lies true manhood and in- 
dependence. Every man should be at the same time his own 
servant and his own master. The aim of the state should be 
to do as little as possible, rather than as much as possible, for 
the people. The very last thing that this world will ever want, 
or should ever want, is communism. Communism means slav- 
ery, inevitable and everlasting slavery, for all but the favored 
few who are so fortunate as to be at the head. State help is the 
most expensive of all kinds of help, and generally it is the most dan- 
gerous in its tendencies and influences. Let there be no mistake 
on this point, and when the beggar cries " help ! " " help : " let 
the prompt answer be : " work ! " work ! " There are altogether 
too many tramps in this country — too many people who proceed 
upon the theory that "the world owes them a living, and they 
will have it." 

EXCESS OF LAW. 

Here it might properly be added that it is a bad policy to 
make a law or rule that is to apply in a case that has not yet 
come to pass. No two cases are ever exactly alike, and no 
apriori law could possibly be enacted that would apply with 
justice to both at the same time. Instead of having general 



274 EXCESS OF LAW. 

laws, after the manner of a Procrustean bed which everything 
is made to fit, we should have no such laws at all. Originally, 
men did not have general laws, but those that they had were 
made to apply to some particular case. Of course there ought 
to be certain well-known principles, certain established and un- 
questioned truths which are not necessarily put in print, but 
are implanted in the hearts of all, and when some new case 
comes up, those who are known to understand these principles 
should apply them in accordance with the facts and circum- 
stances of the case. The fundamental question in all cases 
should be. What ought to be done?" How unjustly are gen- 
eral laws found to work in practice ! How absurd it is that a 
man who steals must uniformly go to prison from two to 
seven years, as if all cases of stealing involved an equal amount 
of guilt, and as if a rule that would be just in one case of steal- 
ing would be equally just in every other. It is a well-known 
fact that no two cases are alike, and therefore no two men 
should be punished alike. In some cases, theft, so far from de- 
serving punishment, is really excusable. We all steal in one 
way or another, as opportunity offers. Again, it must be re- 
membered that a year in prison for one man is a very different 
thing from a year in prison for some other man, perhaps a man 
with much finer feelings. 

No general rule or law can be made to harmonize with jus- 
tice. Suppose a rule is made in school that there shall be no 
whispering. That is a rule that cannot be carried out with any 
sort of propriety or success. Children must frequently whisper, 
or communicate together in some way. It is far better not to 
make a law than to endeavor to establish one that is certain to 
be broken. It is to be observed again that nature has no gen- 
eral laws to which there are not many exceptions. In fact 
nature has no laws at all in the proper sense of the term. It is 
not a law, for instance, that everything gravitates to the earth. 
The atmosphere is a part of the earth, and yet in it things move 
freely in all directions, upward quite as well as downward. So 



EXCESS OF LAW. 



275 



is the water a part of the earth, but it is a well-known fact that 
things move upward as well as downward, in the water, as in 
the air. No law of any kind can be more than partially or qual- 
ifiedly true. There are always exceptions. But what is qual- 
ifiedly or partially true, is not true at all in any just sense. 

Many people get along well without any formulated laws, 
^.nd there are many more who get along without anything that 
bears the semblance of a legislature. It is evident enough that 
no people need laws. Nature has no laws — in its operations 
nothing is uniform, nothing perfectly regular. Even the two ears 
on a man's head, or his two hands or feet are never exactly alike, 
though usually they resemble each other. So it is with the paths 
or motions of planets — they are all similar and yet they all differ. 
In vegetation nothing is ever duplicated ; everything, even the 
smallest in nature, has its own particular place and office, and its 
own peculiar form. Again, nothing is single or elementary, 
though it may appear so. A ray of light is known to be a bundle 
of rays ; the simplest sound is a combination of sounds, and every 
force is merely the resultant of many smaller, simpler, forces : 
a stream of water that appears like a thread is made up of other 
streams, like the strands of a cord. It is very far from the 
truth to say that nature follows laws. 

Legislation, as we have it to-day, is comparatively a modern 
invention. Originally in governments which are the most thor- 
oughly organized, the king was the law-maker, as well as the 
supreme ruler. But then he did not follow law-making as a 
business or amusement, and the people of those days were not 
burdened with the hundreth part of the laws that we are cursed 
with now. Men did not need so many laws then, nor do we 
need so many laws now. What is wanted by men above all 
things in this world, is that the state should let them alone. 

We have seen already that the people do not make the laws. 
It is equally true that representatives, certainly as a body, do 
not make the laws. As legislation is practiced now, not only in 
this country, but in all the constitutional monarchies of Europe, 



276 EXCESS OF LAW. 

the laws are made by committees of the legislature. They put 
the bill in shape, they consider it. they add to it. or they take 
away from it. Without their consent, it can never move, and 
can never become a law. Often it is ''killed" in committee. 
The party, the machine, controls the committee, and the com- 
mittee controls legislation, especially in its earlier stages. Xo 
greater delusion ever prevailed than the one that the people, in 
any country or under any form of government, make the laws. 
They have a little, a very little to do with selecting law-makers 
and that so natters them and turns their heads that they do not 
hesitate to surrender everything else. 

A legislature is an absolutely useless body. What pertains 
to conduct is for the community to consider and decide upon, 
and such a thing can never come properly within the province 
of a legislature. The chief injury that legislatures do to society 
lies in the uncertainty which their action produces. Xo one 
can decide in advance what a legislature will do. If it passes a 
law this year, there is often reason to fear that it will be re- 
pealed by the legislature of the following year. Xo man can 
form any idea what may happen in the way of legislation at 
any time. If a man buys property to-day at a good price he 
never can feel sure that the legislature will not take a notion to 
destroy its value by enacting some new law. And it must be 
borne in mind that the state rarely or never pays for the dam- 
ages which are occasioned by its own wrong-doing. The state 
is infallible, and a state that is infallible can do no wrong. 
Hence it is not responsible for its action. 

Is it not possible for us to get along without written laws ? 
Most certainly, and better without them than with them. Laws 
give occasion for trouble and turmoil. Suppose two men, or 
twenty or a hundred men, meet for the first time in a desert or 
in a wilderness. They are not there subject to any law and of 
course they are not subject to any state control. Would they 
not be able to get along in some way ? Would they not, by 
common consent, adapt themselves to the situation in which 



EXCESS OF LAW. 277 

they happened to find themselves ? They would certainly have 
no need of laws, and if they had they would either be worthless 
or injurious to them. Laws are needed only where there is a 
state to be maintained. Do we get along any better with our 
thousand or more of new laws every year than we did when we 
only had two hundred? Laws multiply our evils and add to our 
daily miseries and sorrows. The happiest people in the world are 
those that have the fewest laws. The vilest acts ever perpe- 
trated are those that have been done in the name and under the 
sanction of law ! We need not furnish examples — they must 
occur to every reader. 

To make human laws that are consistent with justice, must 
'be ranked among the impossibilities of this life. In practice most 
of our laws are finally settled and determined by the courts. 
Indeed, a law is really not a law until the matter has been 
brought into the courts, and the judges have rendered their 
decision. But it will be conceded that neither the court nor the 
legislators consider it to be within their province to settle ques- 
tions of justice or propriety. In the legislature, as we have 
seen, the main endeavor is to find the means by which members 
can attain their ends. The inquiry that concerns them most 
is what they can do, not what they ought to do. In the courts 
the case is somewhat different. In the courts they affect to 
simply interpret the law. but the judges cannot help being- 
swayed in their interpretations, more or less, by their prejudices 
or their interests. Judges are never moralists, never theorists. 
They decide uniformly what must be done — never what ought to 
be done. Is that not a strange thing ? They never let their 
sympathies or feelings interfere with what they consider to be 
their duty — that is the theory at least. In fact a judge is never 
presumed to have either feelings or sympathies. He has noth- 
ing but wisdom and intelligence. Judges make no preten- 
sions to rendering honest and just decisions. All they claim 
is, that they follow the law. And even if they desired to be 
just, they would, in most cases, find it quite impossible to do 



278 EXCESS OF LAW. 

so. A true judge must have no feelings ; in that respect he is 
like the executioner. Indeed, in a strict sense, he is the execu- 
tioner. The executioner commonly so called is merely his agent. 
No, it is utter nonsense to talk about justice in connexion with 
court decisions. Social prejudices, personal antipathies, human 
weaknesses, defective knowledge, and many other important 
circumstances that cannot be made to appear on the records, 
all these conspire to render the pretense that law is even re- 
motely connected with such a thing as fairness and right sim- 
ply a delusion and a snare. And yet men are continually assert- 
ing, and they really believe, such is their blindness and infat- 
uation, that without law we should have no justice, and that 
without law men would be continually wronging each other. 
As if it were not a well ascertained fact that the more laws 
there are, the more injustice and transgression there must be ! 

And again, we are continually told how much the laws are 
doing for ourselves and everybody else. But what does the law 
do for us? It is at best an incentive, a certain something that 
reminds us that this we can do, and nobody can harm or hinder 
us. The law permits many things, but it never compels the doing 
of any one of them. What good would a million of laws do, 
if they were not put in force ? Who puts them in force ? We 
must answer, men. It is men that protect men, it is men that, 
aid men. It is men that govern men — it is not the law, the law 
of itself does nothing. The law does not even punish. No one 
should make the common mistake of supposing that to be a fact. 
It is mm that punish — they only use the law as an excuse, or as a 
means for their own protection. Could not men do all the 
things that they now do without the aid or permission of the 
law? If laws of themselves did the business, there would be 
nothing left for men to do. If laws in themselves were power- 
ful, we would have no useless or worthless laws. Is it not clear 
to every thinking man, that in human law there is absolutely 
no strength, no binding force, and even no impelling or pro- 



TITHES AND TAXATION. 279 

pelling power ? These same conclusions, it will be remembered, 
we have reached in other parts of the work. 

Finally, it matters not so much what laws are enacted as 
how they are executed. Laws are laid down with more or 
less precision, but the manner in which the law is to be exe- 
cuted is not clearly denned. That part is left to the feelings, 
tastes, interests and judgment of the one who happens to be 
in authority. The official can, as is often done, leave the law 
unexecuted. 



TITHES AND TAXATION. 



During all the ages of which history gives us any account, 
and among all the various peoples of the world, religious wor- 
ship has presented substantially the same uniform character- 
istics. The leading points of this worship are found in sacri- 
fice and suffering, in denying one's self things prized or longed 
for, and in giving to the gods a part of one's property in order 
to be secure in the possession of the remainder. 

The relations between the people and their divinities have 
always been the same as those existing between slaves and their 
masters. But with all their power and ability, these divinities 
appear to have been entirely dependent upon common mortals 
for certain important services and attentions. Undoubtedly, 
the first deities of the human race were the ancestors of men, 
and these ancestors were wholly dependent upon their surviving 
children for burial ceremonies and other observances which were 
deemed to be absolutely essential. So it was with the gods ; it 
would appear that they could hardly exist without a certain 
amount of sacrifice and ceremony, for which they were com- 
pelled to rely entirely upon members of the human race. All 
the troubles of the Jehovah of the Old Testament seem to have 
arisen from the faithlessness, disobedience and inattention of 
his chosen children of Israel. Nothing appears to have made 



280 TITHES AND TAXATION. 

this God so indignant, and nothing to have so exasperated 
him. as to learn that his people were not giving him due rever- 
ence and were inclined to bow down before other gods. Over 
and over again Jehovah declares, "I am a jealous God "—and 
his whole history shows that to be his true character. 

Up to a recent date, when the state first came into notice, 
men had no other duty of importance allotted to them than 
that of serving the Lord. Even agriculture was a devotional 
work. Men were not only the Lord's obedient servants, they 
were actually his slaves. The Lord owned their persons and 
held prior title to all their possessions ; and under such circum- 
stances, it is not at all strange that men were glad to give a 
tenth of all they produced or possessed, if they could only be 
sure of being allowed to retain the balance. 

A two-fold tithe was required of the Jewish citizen. One 
tenth of the product of his fields, forests, herds and flocks went 
to maintain the Levites in their cities, and one tenth of the re- 
maining nine-tenths was given to the tabernacle and was used 
in entertaining the Levites and others. It will be remembered 
also that the Levites studied law and were the judges of the 
country. Indeed, it is well known that all law. civil as well as 
religious law, came originally from the priests. 

For many centuries the giving of tithes was simply a re- 
ligious duty and no attempt was made to enforce such a pay- 
ment by civil process. Indeed, there was, up to the later cen- 
turies, very little law of any kind except religious law. or law 
,as it came from God. It was easily seen that tithes paid under 
compulsion would have no merit, so far as the individual him- 
self was concerned. Of course the church, or the gods, have 
had to be supported and maintained throughout all time, and 
this was done originally by the voluntary contributions of men. 
But from about the time of Charlemagne matters began to as- 
sume a new phase, laws then began to be made by men with- 
out God's aid or intercession, and one of the uses of these laws 
was to compel men to divide their income with the state, the 



TITHES AND TAXATION. 281 

most convenient way of doing which being through payments 
made under the name of taxes. 

We have seen that the original purpose for which these 
tithes or taxes were collected was to ensure the support of the 
Lord and to declare his glory to the world. But for people at 
the present day who take nothing on trust without evidence 
and who bring everything down to the touchstone of reason, 
the question that naturally arises, is this: How much of these 
tithes and what particular portion or share of them does the 
Lord really get? Indeed, what use can a God who is a real God 
have for such observances? For such things at the present time, 
for a Supreme Being such as men believe in to-day. there can be 
no use whatever. There is no means by which the things sacri- 
ficed can be transported to heaven, or to any place where God 
may happen to reside, and there is no way of communicating with 
him directly in any manner. It was originally supposed that 
such communication was carried on through the medium of a 
certain class of common mortals called priests, but people now 
think perhaps there was a great deal of false pretense or de- 
lusion about this communicating with the Lord. The priests 
may have had the Lord's ear, but we have only their word for 
it, and in this case it is open to a great deal of question. 

No, the God that delighted in tithes and sacrifices and such 
things was a different God entirely from ours of the present day. 
We do not know what has become of him — we have not heard 
from him in a long, long time. The God which the Old Testa- 
ment tells about and which the Israelites believed in was cer- 
tainly a very different God from ours. Their God dwelt among 
men, he lived as a man, and it was entirely natural that he 
should need to be fed and served and worshiped as a man. But 
how much of the sacrifices and the tithes devoted to the Lord 
does any one suppose that he actually got ? A little of the lamb 
or kid sacrificed was burned and was supposed to go up to the 
Lord in the form of smoke. But the balance, and much the 
biggest and best part of the offering, was consumed by the priests 



282 TITHES AND TAXATION. 

and the temple attendants. The worshiper himself also got a 
share for his trouble and the expense he had been put to. Is it 
not easy to see that the priests, not only among the Jews, but 
among all the people who worship gods, have a direct personal 
interest in having the feast days come as often as possible and 
having the sacrifices made as frequently as the circumstances 
of the case will allow ? Is there any doubt at all that the 
people were deluded in those days, as people are deluded in 
various ways now ? We know very well that the Lord does not 
need our help nor our devotion, nor our submission nor our sacri- 
fices, and still we go on spending a great deal of time and wast- 
ing quite a little money in that direction week after week and 
year after year. Will some one be so kind as to indicate just 
what man could do for God in this advanced stage of thought 
and enlightenment, or what need God has of man's assistance 
in any way ? 

Until a comparatively recent date men never presumed to 
tax their fellow men to provide for their own support or to 
raise a fund so that they themselves could go on living in idle- 
ness at the expense of some one else. That is simply a modern 
conception. Originally, as we have seen, men were taxed for 
the benefit of the Lord — the Lord demanded the tithes and he 
really needed them, it was assumed. In a case like that , people 
would of course pay cheerfully and without compulsion. Xo 
one would be willing to see the Lord suffer. We have seen, and 
we understand full well that the Lord did not really get one 
particle of these contributions, not even "a smell" when the 
sacrifices were made— but people went on contributing just the 
same. They were deluded — they meant it all right enough. 
Indeed, people are always right in their intentions. It is their 
leaders who deceive them and they are the ones who are 
chiefly to blame. 

Are not people being deluded in the same way to-day ? 
The people, the farmers chiefly, have been paying taxes in some 
form ever since the world was made — and they are paying taxes 



TITHES AND TAXATION. 283 

stilL Originally, they paid taxes to the Lord, but the Lord has 
gone out of business and he has been removing himself farther 
and farther from men as time has been going on, until at last 
it has become almost impossible to locate him with any degree 
of certainty. Under such circumstances, it is not at all strange 
that men hare found a new God to worship. This new God. 
who is called the state, is a great deal more exacting and 
despotic than the old God. Men are like the frogs : they 
wanted a king, and now they have one. The old God was con- 
tent with a tenth, or even less, but the new God. the state, 
wants the half of a man's net income, and sometimes more ! 
Mark the resemblance in every particular between the pretences 
made by the priests who claimed to speak for the Lord and the 
methods followed by those who pretend to be the oracles of the 
state. They never say. " we want so much money for our own 
use and enjoyment." but ••the state wants it!" They never 
demand anything for their own private use and benefit — that 
would be quite out of character, and everybody would say so. 
Xo. they want it for the good of the "public." for the good of 
•• the greatest number. ! " What a fraud and deception all such 
pretences are ! There never was in all this world a tax levied 
and collected which was finally expended for the benefit of the 
whole state. There never was a tax collected and disbursed 
mainly for the good even of the greatest number. Think of the 
taxes paid every year by the people of any county ! How 
much direct or tangible benefit do the taxpayers themselves 
get? How much of it ever returns to them in any form. I 
would like to know ? Study it all over and see where the money 
lodges in the end — some goes to the teachers of the school, some 
to the town officers, some to the county officers, some to the 
state officers, some, a very large amount, to those whose bills 
have been audited, some goes to the tramps and some to the 
poor and needy, but where does the farmer come in. the tax- 
payer par excellence, and how much does he get out of the 
business ? Let us hold our breath and calmly pause for a reply 



284 TITHES AND TAXATION. 

to this question : Where does the taxpayer himself come in for 
his benefit ? While we are waiting for the replies to these ques- 
tions, I beg to add one more remark, that only slaves pay taxes 
that they themselves have not levied or to ivhich they have not given 
their consent. The claim that there is such a consent is uni- 
formly fraudulent. 

Yes, man is now in a much worse plight than he was when 
he simply made sacrifices and paid tithes unto the Lord as ' ' a 
ransom for his soul. " It is true he never saw the Lord, dealing 
as he did exclusively with the Lord's agents, the priests, but in 
that respect his case is no better now. as he does not see the 
state, but deals entirely with its officials. Formerly he owed 
allegiance only to the Lord, but now the Lord is dispensed with 
and he owes allegiance wholly to the state. Man has changed 
masters, but I could not say that he has bettered his condition 
very much. Providence had to be fed and occasionally given a 
smell of sweet savor, but that was only occasionally. With the 
state the case is different ; the state we have with us always, 
as we do the poor, and it has to be fed and served every day in 
the week and every week in the year. There is no end to the 
sacrifices that must be made under the dominion of the state. 
Our state is very much like the God of the Old Testament — very 
jealous, very exacting, much given to wrath and not easily ap- 
peased. That is the reason why people have to be saying some- 
thing sweet and doing something handsome pretty much all the 
time — just to appease the state and keep it in good humor. If 
the wrath of the state should happen to wax hot, the subjects 
would have a very hard time of it. But our people are becom- 
ing quite well educated and trained, and they have learned 
what is best for themselves in dealing with the state. Just as 
our ancestors blessed the dear Lord and called him the best God 
the world ever saw, just so we go about day after day praising 
the goodness of the state and declaring that we have the best 
government under the sun. That is a way we have grown into, 
and it shows the efficacy and importance of early training. It 



TITHES A>"D TAXATION. 285 

is no doubt a good thing for slaves to love their master, no mat- 
ter whether he has a good or a bad way of doing business. 

Until a very recent date, all men not absolutely held in 
bondage were very sensitive on the matter of taxation. As a 
rule, men denied the right of government to raise money by a 
system of direct taxation, and the money that was secured came 
from certain revenues, or was obtained in some indirect or un- 
derhanded way. The very thing that brought on the American 
Revolution was the claim put forth by the mother country that 
she had a right to tax the colonies. And even when the Amer- 
ican government was formed and questions in connexion with 
that formation were being discussed, the right of the government to 
tax citizens was generally denied. Even so high and so late an 
authority as Blackstone says : " Xo subject of England can be 
constrained to pay any aids or taxes of the government, but such 
as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in par- 
liament. " But a new and a very strange principle prevails to- 
day : men are taxed for any and all purposes, and to any ex- 
tent, without considering the wishes or willingness of the citi- 
zen for one moment. Give the government the right to 

LEVY TAXES ON ITS OWN MOTION. AND THE LIBERTIES OF THE 
PEOPLE ARE GONE FOREVER. 

It is a curious fact that people of this state have thus far. 
as a general thing, paid very little attention to the subject of 
taxes and taxation. They are so intent upon accumulating 
property, or in getting what is commonly called their "bread 
and butter. " that they leave the tax business entirely to politi- 
cians. This is precisely what the politicians want, and though 
a person would naturally suppose that the interests of the politi- 
cians would be diametrically opposed to the interests of the 
public, still these two sections of our state, the politicians and 
the people, seem to get along nicely together and, so far as all 
outward appearances are concerned, there is the best of under- 
standing between them. The politicians simply want their way. 
and the people are willing that they should have it. So, where 



286 TITHES AND TAXATION. 

is there any possible chance of difficulty between these two 
sections, at least so long as such an admirable state of things 
exists as we find at present ? Neither seems to be inclined to 
anticipate trouble, thinking. I presume, that the proper time to 
cross a bridge is when you come to it. But I doubt very much 
whether this apparent feeling of happiness and contentment is 
destined to continue forever. There may not be any serious 
trouble in this generation, but there will be in the next. By and 
by the people will begin to wake up and understand that they 
have been robbed — shamefully and outrageously robbed. Then 
there will be a rattling among the dry bones that are now rest- 
ing in high places, and the politicians and amateur statesmen 
will be called upon to render an account of their stewardship. 
How will these offenders be able to justify themselves: What 
will they say ? How will they explain their extortions and ex- 
cuse the tricks and deceptions through which this work has 
been accomplished r These are questions to which the future 
may possibly furnish the answers, when the time and opportu- 
nity arrive. 

Perhaps I have intimated before, and if so I simply repeat it 
here, that the American people are the most patient tax-paying 
people to be found on the face of the earth. In that respect, 
neither the Turks, the Persians nor the Egyptians excel them. 
To this remark we must add that, with the exception of the 
English, there is no nation on the planet that has such an idol- 
atrous reverence for laws as the Americans have. AVith them, 
whatever is lawful is right, though it does not happen always 
that whatever is right is also lawful. With Americans, taxes 
come from law. and as laws are necessarily right, it must fol- 
low that all taxes are also right. And that is the reason why 
Americans always pay their taxes, just as they eat their break- 
fast in the morning, without a murmur and as a matter of 
course. 

But let us dwell a moment on the true nature and bearing 
of taxes, as they have been developed in this state. What must 



TITHES AND TAXATION. 287 

a man pay taxes for ? To support the government, is the reply. 
But is it really necessary that the government should thus be 
supported ? Perhaps it would be generally denied that we could 
get along without any government, but is it not a well ascertained 
fact that we could get along with a great deal less government 
than we have ? Is it not in accordance with current public senti- 
ment to believe that we have had all along altogether too much 
government in our families, in our schools, in communities and in 
the state ? If a man is called upon to pay a certain sum as a tax. 
the only just claim upon him would be found in the benefits he 
had received or which he was expected to receive in the future. 
But how many of those who are compelled to go before the tax 
receiver every year have received any benefit, or at least any ap- 
preciable benefit for the sums they are obliged to pay } Certainly 
not many. In fact, if we trace the history of taxes far enough 
back, we shall find that then true nature is that of tithes and 
sacrifices, and men do not pay their taxes because they have re- 
ceived benefits or favors, but because they have the relations of 
serfs and they owe a certain sum to their God. 

Still further in regard to taxes. What portion of all the 
taxes that the people of any town are called upon to pay 
really goes to support the government 1 Only an insignifi- 
cant portion. Instead of paying our money to support the 
state, we are paying it simply to aid or gratify other people. 
All that we pay for the poor, for the soldiers, for the feeble- 
minded, for the insane, for the sick, for schools, for hospitals, 
for courts and court officers, etc.. comes under this head. Nine- 
teen out of every twenty tax-payers, or perhaps a larger frac- 
tion, receive no benefit whatever from what they are compelled 
to pay. and therefore the tax is in the fullest sense unjust and 
oppressive, Every man would be willing to contribute his share 
towards supporting and educating the poor and helpless, 
whether soldiers or not. but that is as far as reason and justice 
would carry us in that direction. In all countries and in all 
ages, the poor and feeble have been cared for by those who have 



288 



TITHES AND TAXATION. 



been more fortunate, but it has been reserved exclusively for the 
nineteenth century to build palaces and lay out pleasure 
grounds for the poor, the blind, the idiotic and insane, to afford 
a college education to the children of other folks, whether rich 
or poor, and to multiply laws, officers and bureaus, with an in- 
crease of expenses quite beyond any possible needs of the people. 
I repeat, that the history of the past three thousand years fur- 
nishes absolutely no parallel to this new departure — nothing 
that even approaches it. There was culture and civilization as 
high as ours thousands of years before our day. They had in 
past ages learned men, wise men, eminent men, even great 
men, but yet they got along without free education and free 
text books, without prisons built after the pattern of the castles 
of princes, without hospitals and asylums reared without regard 
to expense, and without state buildings furnished in a style 
rivaling the Alhambra in splendor. 

No, matters have changed greatly within a hundred years, 
nay, even fifty years. Things are taking a decidedly communistic 
turn. It is coming to be the prevailing belief that the people 
are the children, and the state must take care of them. Every- 
body wants the state to do something for him, help him. " pro- 
tect " him, or at least give him something to do. We are rap- 
idly drifting to precisely the same state of things that existed in 
Rome less than two thousand years ago. Rome amused the 
people, took care of them, gave them free shows, and free corn, 
and at the same time it robbed them unmercifully. But 
whether everybody can succeed in getting under the wings of 
the state, as is now being contemplated, remains to be seen. All 
this time taxes go on increasing at a wonderful pace, and they 
must be paid by somebody. And really who does pay them? 
Is it the state ? No, the state does not pay ; its business is to 
receive, always. The state is simply that portion of the people that 
levies, collects and disburses the taxes, which other people pay. Surely 
our taxes are high enough. Even in our country towns, where 
living is supposed to be cheap, a man who is worth one thous- 

18 



TITHES AND TAXATION. 



289 



and dollars, and is so assessed, has to pay every year at different 
times and in different ways over five per cent. , or fifty dollars on 
the thousand. In some cities, the rate is even higher than 
that. But is that not really a pretty high figure ? It must be 
remembered that that thousand dollars which he is assessed is 
not his income, but his capital. The five per cent, on capital, 
often unproductive, is enormous — it is outrageous. Even the 
old despotisms of the world did better than that. They waited 
until a man produced something, raised some crop or secured 
some stock, and then they divided with him, taking a tenth or pos- 
sibly a fifth. But in our present highly civilized times, a man's 
income has nothing to do with the matter. The taxes must be 
paid if it takes the last piece of property that a man has, house, 
crops, stock and all. The JV. T. World says, and says truly, 
" The power to tax is the power to destroy. " 

It might be added that among our ancestors, the old Ger- 
mans, there were no taxes. There was no legislature properly 
so called, and the king never pretended or presumed to tax his 
people. There were no public expenses. The king lived upon 
the income of his own property, though the people often sent 
him gifts which were received as honors, but they really aided 
in his support. 

Who pays the taxes ? We all know it is those who can least 
afford it. Those are the men the world over who do the work 
and pay the taxes. The rich pay only so much as they please ; 
and what they please to pay is usually comparatively a small 
sum. 

PUNISHMENT. 

The subject of punishment is one that has been fully dis- 
cussed in Radical Wrongs, and for that reason the matter will 
receive less attention in this work. However, I would impress 
upon the reader the fact that no subject deserves more careful 
and more serious consideration than this same matter of punish- 



290 



PUNISHMENT. 



ment. If there be any case where men err and are most shame- 
fully in the wrong, it is in their practice of punishing their fel- 
low men — trying them first, then judging and convicting them 
— and finally administering such punishment as accords with 
their notions of justice and propriety. What arrogance, what 
presumption, and how villainous it is, when viewed in its true 
light ! In this connexion, I am reminded of the answer given 
by the pirate to Alexander the Great. The latter demanded 
of the pirate, whom he had captured, by what right he infested 
the seas? "By the same right," was the reply of the pirate. 
" that Alexander enslaves the world. " Just so it is to-day, the 
men who rule and enslave the world are no better in any essen- 
tial respect than the criminals that they presume to persecute 
and punish. 

Where do men get their right to apprehend, confine and try 
their fellow men ? Who has made one man the judge over other 
men ? Who has given him the privilege of deciding upon the 
merits or demerits of other men's actions, and finally the right 
to inflict pain according to his will? To judge, to convict, to 
sentence, is the prerogative of God alone, but to man no such 
right or privilege was ever given. It is said that the law author- 
izes men to sit in judgment over their fellow men. But who 
authorized the men who made the law, and who gave them 
authority in the first place? I think I have shown over and 
over again, in the preceding pages of this work, that legality 
and legitimacy is a sham, a mere matter of fiction and false 
pretence used as a cloak for the sinful conduct of wicked men. 

No, it should be borne in mind by every man that trying a 
person by process of law gives no new rights to any one con- 
nected with the affair. The man who sits on the bench and 
takes the place of God, and who generally conducts himself very 
much as if he were the Almighty himself — who is he ? Do we 
not all know him ? Isn't he a very common sort of person boast- 
ing of a little brief authority ? Sometimes he knows a good 
deal of law, and sometimes but very little, but whether he 



PUNISHMENT. 



291 



lmows much or little, what difference does that make with the 
character and privileges of the man himself ? He was a very- 
common sort of man when he was elected, and I am not able to 
see that an election can metamorphose him in any manner or to 
any extent. And the complainant, who is he ? A common man 
with a grievance. And the lawyers ? Very common men, in- 
deed, we all know, aside from the little law that they are sup- 
posed to have learned from books. And the constable and sheriff, 
the hangman and his assistants, the man who takes men to prison 
or the gallows, what shall we say of such men ? I prefer not to 
say anything, because I cannot say anything very complimen- 
tary of a man who consents to act in such a capacity simply for 
the compensation which that disgraceful service affords him. 
I trust no one will pretend that there is anything divine or any- 
thing out of the ordinary course of things in a common every- 
day trial in court. God, I am sure, would have nothing to do 
with such a fraudulent and outrageous proceeding as that. It 
is wholly a human affair, from beginning to end — or rather I 
ought to say, perhaps, an inhuman affair. 

I wish to say right here, and I am only sorry that every 
man in the country cannot hear and appreciate the utter J 
ance : that no trial in court ever changes in the slightest respect 
the status or character of the men wlw are engaged or involved in 
its proceedings. Such a trial demonstrates nothing — it leaves the 
facts of the case and the character of the people involved just 
where they were before the trial began. A man who is guilty 
i s no more guilty after the trial than he was before. No man 
gains or loses a single right or privilege by being tried in court 
— or at least he ought not. If he was a bad man before trial, he 
c ertainly could be no worse after trial, and yet look at the dif- 
ference in treatment accorded to a man before conviction and a 
man after conviction ! 

When will people let the scales drop from their eyes and 
see that a trial in court is not a divine affair, but a most ordi- 
nary human affair, and hence that it cannot give men new rights nor 



292 PUNISHMENT . 

deprive tliem of rights winch they already possess ? What I claim, and 
what no just man will deny, is this, that one man has as much 
right to try a man as any other man has. A robber has just as 
good a right — when you come to the mere question of right — to 
try his victim and pass sentence on him as a supreme court 
judge has. What is the real difference between a man's sitting 
in judgment on a case before being elected to office and his 
doing the same thing a few days afterwards? Is he any 
wiser, better, more just and more divine in one case than in 
the other ? So far as the mere question of right is concerned, 
and so far also as the ability to discover the truth is concerned, 
a Lynch jury is as good as any other jury. No, let us once for 
all, get rid of the ridiculous conception or belief that any one 
man is in better condition to judge his fellow men than some 
other man is. 

Eoery trial is persecution. Every punishment, in any form, 
and for whatever purpose, is persecution. Inflicting pain on a 
man, and causing him anguish and sorrow, before conviction 
is, in principle and in fact, not in the least different from in- 
flicting pain upon a man, or in other words punishing him, after 
conviction. The father who whips his child does not do so as a 
father, but as an ordinary man who acts from the impulse of 
anger or perhaps from a sense of duty. Wherein does his act 
differ, so far as wrong is concerned, from that of any other man 
who should whip the child? Officers of law excuse themselves for 
their misconduct by saying that they acted from a sense of 
duty — as if other men, or as if all men, did not act from a sense 
of duty also ! A sense of duty can excuse no man, because any 
man may be mistaken in his sense of duty. The Inquisition, 
which tried and convicted men as our courts do, acted from a 
pure sense of duty. The greatest rascal in the world always 
acts according to his conception of duty. It would be far bet- 
ter if mankind would lay aside such terms as legal and illegal, 
legitimate and illegitimate, and in treating of conduct merely con- 
sider whether it is proper or improper, just or not just. 



PUNISHMENT. 293 

Then, let us consider how men are proved guilty. What is 
evidence, what is proof, what does a verdict in any case establish ? 
How very little it takes to prove a man guilty : and how 
very much it often requires to prove hini innocent ! There is no 
proof that amounts to demonstration — and even mathematical 
demonstration is open to criticism. The platform on which the 
proof is based is always taken for granted., and is itself never a 
matter that is capable of demonstration. Proof, at best, is 
what the word implies, merely what is probable. All evidence 
in court deals exclusively with probabilities and possibilities — 
never with certainties. Even where there are eye-witnesses, 
no two of them agree in their accounts. Yet men go on judg- 
ing men, even their motives, of which nothing can be absolutely 
proven, and on their own judgment, their mere personal opin- 
ion, the best men of this world are sent to the gallows or to 
prison. It often happens that it is only necessary to have a 
man accused in order to have him found guilty. Judges, like 
other men. are uniformly controlled in their decisions by what 
seems to them either their interest or their duty. 

Formerly, men proved their case by resorting to a duel 
called a wager of battle, and doubtless that was as good a proof 
as most of the methods that we follow nowadays. The strong- 
est or luckiest man wins, and so the decision is looked upon as 
the work of the Almighty. This method was employed not only 
in Europe, but in the East. Two men fought to see which was 
right ! The case is about the same as an average lawsuit — it is 
merely a struggle to see which man will win. and Providence 
has probably as much to do with the lawsuit as he had with the 
wager of battle. We have wager in many forms : our elec- 
tions, for instance. Another proof was throwing the accused 
into the water to see whether he would float or not. If he 
floated, that was evidence of his guilt. It might be added that 
every battle is a wager of battle. Fighting by armies is like 
righting by twos or threes. The armies always fight as the 



294 PUNISHMENT. 

proxies or representatives of their country. People at the pres- 
ent day never fight as a whole. 

What does our hearsay amount to ? It amounts to very 
little, but still the judge always decides upon what he hears 
others say. People have the absurd idea that swearing to a 
thing proves it, while the fact is that it is no proof at all. It is 
evidence only so far as it goes. It is a well-known fact that a 
man who is under oath, as we say, is just as liable to be mis- 
taken as the same man would be, when not under oath. Again, 
the one who swears on the stand is just as willing and as ready 
to lie as he would be under any other circumstances. Swearing- 
has absolutely nothing to do with a man's veracity, especially 
when he is sure of escaping detection. Originally, when people 
believed in God and the Bible, a man's being under oath made 
some difference, but now when people have so little faith in 
God, it does not. Calling for "the help of God." in taking the- 
oath, is a mere trick or ceremony, and does not help matters in 
the least. 

It is evident that the right to govern and the right to inflict 
punishment must stand or fall together. If men can govern, 
they can and will punish : indeed, the only way that govern- 
ment could manifest itself is by punishing. Without punish- 
ment, government ceases to be government : it becomes mere 
sentiment, a mere expression of will, without any power to en- 
force the will. If one man has no right to exercise control over 
another, then one man has no right to inflict punishment on 
another. ISTo man would consent to be punished except by those- 
who rightfully had authority over him. We have shown that 
no man has a right to control another, and hence it follow? that 
no man has a right to punish another. Every punishment is 
not simply an offence — it is a crime against man and against 
nature. 

Why shall men punish ? Because it is legal ? But I think 
it has already been shown that legality justifies no crime. Or, is it 
necessary? Who says it is necessary ? The judge. But is not your 



PUNISHMENT. 295 

opinion and my opinion on that matter just as good as the opin- 
ion of any judge, when he passes sentence— for all that he 
gives is merely his opinion ? I say it is not necessary, and no 
doubt you, after due consideration of the matter, would say the 
same thing. If punishment is necessary, crime is also neces- 
sary. So. where is the difference again? It should be borne in 
mind that no criminal ever does any act that he does not be- 
lieve to be necessary and proper. It must not be forgotten that 
every man. even every criminal is a judge, just like any other 
judge. Every act of every individual, involves a matter of judg- 
ment in some way, that is, every voluntary, conscious act does 
so. 

We have seen that the right to punish nowhere exists, or at 
least that a man acting in a public capacity has no better right 
to punish an offender than the same man would have when act- 
ing in a private capacity. The question of right and justice 
being disposed of. the next question to be considered is this : Is 
it expedient to punish '? Who shall decide such a question as 
that ? Is not one man's judgment as good as another man's 
judgment on that point ? If you say it is expedient and neces- 
sary, may not I on the other hand be permitted to say it is not ? 
It may be expedient for you. but not for me ; and so far as all 
questions are concerned that affect me, I am the one. and the 
only one to decide what is right and what is wrong, and even 
what is expedient or necessary. I acknowledge no man as my 
master : I acknowledge no man as my judge. There is only 
one case where a man might be permitted with some propriety 
to act as judge, and that is where he has been chosen by all 
parties concerned to act as mediator — and then only because he 
has been thus chosen. But for even such a mediator, I deny all 
authority, all power or right to enforce what he decides to be 
just. 

Again, if the public officer may be governed in his action 
by what he considers expedient, any private citizen should be 
permitted to do the same thing. The worst criminal in the 



296 PUNISHMENT. 

world does simply what he deems expedient, that is, expedient 
for himself. If he shoots the officer who pursues him, he does 
it from motives of expediency. We do not allow him to excuse 
himself on the ground of the assumed expediency in his case, but 
is the public officer, or is society, in any better condition when 
it pleads the same excuse? Oh, but society has the right and 
the authority ! But I deny its right, I repudiate its authority, 
at least over me, and I defy any man living to show that it has 
the slightest vestige of either right or authority over me, except 
so far as it has the physical force, and that never gives right or 
authority to any party. The authority that comes from force 
is evanescent. It only lasts so long as it continues to be supe- 
rior. But, heaven be thanked, the time is rapidly coming 
when men will have some other standard for the measurement 
of right besides force. 

We have disposed of the question of right and the matter of 
expediency. The next that we must consider is this : Does 
punishment make things better, does it preserve order, does it 
protect citizens in their so-called rights ? No, most certainly it 
does nothing of the kind. That has been one of the many de- 
lusions that men have been laboring under for some thousands 
of years, and now for the first they are just beginning to open 
their eyes and see that it really is a delusion, and a most unfor- 
tunate delusion at that. Men now begin to see that punishments 
produce disorder rather than concord ; they enrage and de- 
moralize men and make them worse rather than better. The 
best illustration of this fact is seen in the case of the boy who is 
perpetually scolded and whipped. That punishments do not pre- 
vent crime is shown by the fact that while prisons increase, 
even crimes, those of the most heinous character, likewise in- 
crease. With all our laws, and with all their severity, the United 
States has ten thousand murders in a year. That punishments do 
not protect citizens is shown by the fact that citizens are offended, 
insulted and injured every day without the slightest possibility of 
securing reparation in any way. 



PUNISHMENT. 



297 



So far from punishment's producing order, it produces dis- 
order. How is a riot quelled? By killing a lot of men and 
women, and producing a state of affairs infinitely more horrible 
than that which prevailed before the soldiers and the police in- 
terfered. How does society attempt to stop murders ? Simply 
by committing the same crime itself. How does society pre- 
vent robbery? By punishing and torturing the criminal, if 
caught, and rendering all of his family sorrow-stricken and 
miserable. How does society collect rents ? By distressing the 
tenants and turning the poor unfortunate creatures out of doors 
to freeze and starve. How does the state prevent war? By 
making war. How does it obtain peace ? By fighting for it. 
How does it protect some people? By violating the rights of 
other people. How does it make some men rich ? By making 
other men poor. 

Alas ! What a contemptible farce it is to talk about the 
good the state does ! Why not talk about the wickedness and 
rascality of the state, the shameful crimes it commits daily, the 
men it murders, the families it renders homeless and supper- 
less ? Why not talk about the absolute heartlessness and vil- 
lainy of the state? The goodness of the state— that arch de- 
ceiver, that pitiless tyrant, that selfish, conceited and arrogant 
master ! Why talk about such matters ? Why worship the 
state in this country or in any other? What difference does it 
make what form or name government assumes, or what pre- 
tence it makes, so long as it is government, and so long as it en- 
gages in the wicked practices that prevail in all cases where 
force is applied ? 

No, people are steadily getting light on this question and 
forming different opinions from those which were held and ad- 
vocated no later than fifty years ago. The world moves, slowly 
it is true, but it moves, and where it stands to-day, even on 
questions of government and punishment, it did not stand a 
half century since. Within the memory of men now living, 
the time was when men never took the trouble to ask or con- 



298 PUNISHMENT. 

sider the question whether punishing people was either right or 
wrong. It was assumed as a matter of course that whipping 
was indispensable, and without it, the world would certainly go 
to ruin at once. Hence, husbands whipped their wives, the mas- 
ter whipped his servant or his apprentice, the teacher whipped 
his pupil and the officers of the court whipped their victims. 
No man stopped for a moment to raise any question about such 
practices, because from time immemorial men had always done 
business in that way. Everybody believed that whipping was 
good for people— for children especially — and if the master did 
not whip those under him, he would be remiss in the perform- 
ance of his duty. But what a change, what an amazing 
change, has come over the minds of even the common people on 
this subject of corporal punishment ! Most people look upon it 
with horror, and they consider that its application in any case 
is a piece of low brutality. However, they still believe in 
other kinds of punishment — they believe in imprisoning people, 
in fining them and making them pay large sums of money or 
sending them to jail ; and finally, worse than all, they still be- 
lieve in sacrificing the criminal, and in immolating a victim, in 
certain extreme cases, simply to propitiate the Lord and pacify 
an angry people. But they do it in a very kind, Christianlike 
way. Formerly, if they killed a man in this manner, they tor- 
tured him, they burned him, they caused him all the pain and 
anguish possible. Now people do not do business on that basis. 
They aim to hurt the offender just as little as possible ; they 
feed him well while he lives, and finally when the day of exe- 
cution comes, they dispatch him as quickly, as quietly and as 
politely as possible. I do not wonder that all who take part in 
such proceedings are heartily ashamed of it and want to finish 
the job as expeditiously and secretly as ever they can. But it 
must not be forgotten that it is a crime and a brutal piece of 
business in which such men are engaged, view it in any light 
we choose. They need not shrug their shoulders and look 
horror-stricken when they talk about cannibals, for the genuine 



PUNISHMENT. 299 

man-eater is a gentleman compared with those cultured officials 
who, at this late day, make a business of hurrying men on their 
way to eternity, merely for the money there is in the job. And 
then to think that such men will go to church and pray to the 
Lord, besides prating in public about their virtues and their 
patriotism ! It is really surprising to see how far a refined and 
highly cultivated sense of duty will carry some men ! How- 
ever, it is some consolation to think that even in this con- 
nexion the world begins to move. Judicial murders with us 
are very rare things compared with the practice that prevailed 
in old English times, when there were about one hundred 
and seventy different crimes for which a man might be 
killed according to law, the usual method being hanging. In 
those days the life of a man was held at a very low figure. If 
some one in power wanted to rid himself of an enemy, he had 
him accused of some crime, and the unfortunate offender was 
soon on his way to kingdom come, without benefit of the clergy. 
The world still believes in both the necessity and propriety of 
capital punishment, but it must be confessed that it believes in 
this business far less than it did a few years ago. I am very 
confident that before the next century ends the killing of a man 
for any crime, according to law, will be a thing unheard of in 
any civilized land. 

And then our jails, our prisons and penitentiaries, what 
shall we say of them? The first fact to which I would call the 
attention of the reader is this : they are not what they once 
were. Up to recent times when a man was sent to prison, it 
meant business, and if the poor wretch ever got out alive, he 
might consider himself remarkably fortunate. Now the case is 
just the other way. A jail is a place where a man is deprived 
of a few liberties, but he is sure of good board and little or noth- 
ing to do. Even the prisons and penitentiaries have become a sort 
of retreat for the homeless and friendless. A man is not sent 
to prison now to punish him, but to get him out of the way and 
keep him where he cannot bother his neighbors. If he behaves 



300 PUNISHMENT. 

himself, and especially if he has some money and is on good 
terms with his keepers, he will have anything but a hard time 
of it. All this shows that the world in recent years has made 
some progress, even on the subject of prison management. It 
is still deemed necessary to confine men in prison, because that 
has been the practice for centuries past, but in the performance 
of such a disagreeable task, the state aims to be as gentlemanly 
and dignified as the circumstances of the case will allow. But, 
I repeat, the world continues to move. Before the coming cen- 
tury closes, we will either have less prisons and jails than we 
have now, or there will be an entire change in their character. 

If it were a part of my plan to discuss this punishment 
question in full, I would dwell at length on the expensiveness of 
criminal proceedings and of punishments generally. But in 
this place I will only make this remark, that if criminal pro- 
ceedings were dispensed with, and a tenth part of the money 
that goes to the officers of the law in criminal cases were given 
to the victim or his relatives, the public would derive a benefit 
which it fails to receive now, and society would be far happier 
than it is in every respect. As it is, and as it always has been, 
our criminal practice, with its methods and processes, instead 
of protecting people and relieving the distressed, is nothing 
more than a fruitful source of revenue to the easy-going gentle- 
men who happen to enjoy the favor and patronage of the state. 

Before leaving this part of the subject, I wish to add a few 
words on the punishment of the young. It must be plain to all 
who are not too strongly prejudiced in favor of some other view 
of the case, that the bad conduct and misdoings of children are 
largely to be ascribed to the conduct and mismanagement of the 
parents. It is evident that even children cannot be forced or 
legislated into goodness. If they have inherited some, or per- 
haps many, of the bad qualities and propensities of their par- 
ents, the tendency in this direction may be checked or changed, 
but qualities cannot be destroyed. Children should be led — and 
not subdued or controlled. The only way to counteract evil ten- 

§ 



PUNISHMENT. 301 

dencies is by careful and judicious training and treatment. 
Kind words will do much ; while scolding and fretful words 
will defeat the object which the scolder had in view. Blows 
irritate and enrage, and harsh language has a similar effect ; 
the tendency of all these things is to destroy every tender or 
humane sentiment that is found in the heart. In the same 
manner, harsh, painful or offensive treatment operates when 
applied to adults. Severity is not a safe nor a certain remedy 
in any case. 

But it will be asked, shall we let bad children and evil- 
doers go on as they will '? To a certain extent, yes ; to a cer- 
tain extent, no. Even children can and soon will learn that 
they have a direct personal interest in living on fair and friendly 
terms with all, and especially with their parents and friends. 
They will soon learn that they must adapt their course to the 
situation in which they find themselves, and particularly that 
they must have a constant regard for the feelings and wishes 
of those with whom they live or associate. 

The young should be so reared and educated that they may 
not know what harshness, unkindness and cruelty are. Nothing 
should be said to the child about wrongs, injuries, faults, crimes. 
Things that should not exist should not receive recognition, and 
in most cases they never would exist if they were not nursed 
and developed by injudicious management. Where there is 
full confidence and a good understanding between parties, no 
controversies or complaints will arise, and such a thing as 
wrongs in the proper sense of the word will be unknown. 

Some of the child's characteristics and propensities that have 
come down as an inheritance from savage ancestors occasion- 
ally make their appearance, but the effect of these things can 
easily be counteracted by some adroit turn or some happy ar- 
rangement, and we should proceed in that case precisely as we 
would in the case of a man who had partially lost his mind. 
After a few generations these savage traits or strains, these un- 
manlike features of character, will gradually disappear. It is 



302 



PUNISHMENT. 



well-known that even at the present time, near as we are to the 
savage state, in many characteristics, there is little occasion for 
trouble or turmoil, when people exercise a little judgment and 
practice a little self-denial. Our effort should be to avoid every 
tendency that might lead to the development of selfishness and 
to suppress every desire for the gratification of self at the ex- 
pense of others. If we could only succeed in dispensing with 
pride, vanity, covetousness, avarice, ambition, together with 
our high sense of honor, our thirst for power and a few other 
things, we would get along well enough in this world. 

So long as we continue our present barbarous system of 
punishment, we should not think of bringing ourselves into com- 
parison with savages, with the hope of finding results that 
would be in any way flattering to either our pride or our vanity. 
It is very true that the aborigines of this country, and the 
natives of southern and central Africa, have many savage, and 
even brutal customs. But have the cultivated people of Europe 
and America anything to boast of in that direction ? How have 
the natives of the newly discovered countries been treated by 
Europeans in every instance ? We answer for them, by saying 
that they have been treated in a most inhuman and shameful 
manner. They have been treated as if they were wild beasts, 
and not the slightest consideration has been given to those rights 
which should prevail under all circumstances between man and 
man. Europeans send missionaries out to the heathen osten- 
sibly to christianize them and save their souls, but what do 
they really care either for the heathen or his soul ? They are 
ready to shoot him down or cut his throat on the slightest pre- 
text, and very often without any pretext at all. Those accom- 
plished murderers, Pizarro and Cortez, were both Christians, 
and we presume they were very highly civilized. 

The head and front of all the nations of the world in this 
nefarious business of civilizing the heathen, is the English. 
What a record of blood, crime and barbarity they have made 
in the last two hundred years in America, in India, in China, in 



PUNISHMENT. 308 

Africa, in Australia ! And they are pursuing the same wicked 
course to-day. Wherever there is a gold field to be found, or 
where money is to be made through the medium of what is 
called commerce, there you will find the English taking posses- 
sion of the ground, and either driving the natives back or mur- 
dering them if they resist. 

Recently the English were making war upon a feeble 
Ashantee chief or king who goes by the name of Prempeh. 
The complaint that the English made was that Prempeh was 
inhuman and that he sacrificed a great many Ashantee lives in 
following the customs and carrying out the laws of his country. 
That was indeed a queer excuse for England, or any other civ- 
ilized country, to make for going to war with a lot of natives 
in some distant land. Sacrifices ! Are there no sacrifices made 
in civilized countries? Thousands are made every day, in some 
form or for some purpose or other, and millions are made in a 
year, if we take into consideration the civilized world as a 
whole. Every soldier who is killed in battle and every one who 
dies from ill-treatment or exposure is a sacrifice — a needless, 
cruel sacrifice. The Ashantee king and the civilized ruler both 
delight in sacrifices, and the only point in which they differ is 
in the slim excuse which they give for the barbarities of which 
they are guilty. The uncultivated savage has his reasons for 
what he does, and the highly enlightened gentleman has his 
reasons also for what he does. Outside of the reason which 
each gives, their conduct is very much the same in character. 

How many people have been sacrificed to the God of War 
by civilized nations within a comparatively short period of the 
world's history ! About two and a half millions have been sac- 
rificed in that way within the last forty years. In the Crimean 
war 75,000 were killed ; in the Italian war of 1858, 45,000 ; in 
the Austro-Prussian war, 48,000 ; in the Franco-German war, 
215,000 ; in the Turko-Russian war, 250.000 ; and in our late 
civil war 800,000 ! But we continue sacrificing every day in 
hundreds of ways. Every man that is lynched, or hung upon a 



304 PUNISHMENT. 

gallows, or killed in an electric chair, is a sacrifice which an 
angry people make to the God of Justice. Think also of the 
sacrifices made daily to the God of Fashion, God of Money, to 
the Locomotive God, to the Trolley Car God, and even to the 
Bicycle God. No, we need not go to Africa to find repulsive 
practices or barbarous sacrifices. All we have to do is to open 
our eyes and see things in their proper light, and we shall have 
all the object lessons we desire in that direction, without going 
to distant lands at all. 

The native of Africa is sacrificed in one way, perhaps by 
orders of his king, and in this and other countries the citizen is 
driven to slaughter in another way. What difference does it 
make to the poor helpless victim how he is killed, if he is really 
dead when his masters are done with him ? In fact, it hurts him 
more to be killed in the civilized way than it does in the more 
expeditious and less formal way of the African king. In bar- 
baric lands the victim loses his head by the sword or battle axe ; 
in civilized lands the conscript is driven up to the cannon's 
mouth, and is sacrificed in that manner. Which is the best, or 
which is the worst ? Is it possible to give any excuse or furnish 
any justification for one man's killing another under any cir- 
cumstances ? Can murder be legalized in any way ? 

Here it may be added that the time must eventually come 
when motives will not be considered. It is very unjust to 
assume bad motives for our fellow man, when it is well-known 
that motives are something that are concealed in each man's 
bosom and they can never be known with certainty by the 
public. The damage to the one who is injured is equally great, 
no matter what may be the motive that led to the injury. 
Again, what a man really does he wills, and it is a matter of 
no moment to the public what arguments or reasoning may 
have led to the act. Every motive, for the offender himself, 
must be a just one, and all men are moved to do what they 
finally decide to do. There can be no excuse or palliation for a 
bad act, for if that were not so, an excuse or apology might be 

19 



PUNISHMENT. 



305 



made for every act of wrong-doing. There is only one safe and 
sound rule to follow, in the matter of responsibility, and that is 
to hold every man to account for what he knowingly and will- 
ingly does, without regard to motive. There can be no justifi- 
cation for wrong-doing ; if there were any excuse, it would not 
be wrong-doing. A man's position or office, or his motives, cer- 
tainly could not excuse him, otherwise every man would find 
some excuse. 

Some people think there is a radical difference between an 
injury received by a man who happens to be hit upon the head 
by an icicle that drops from the eaves and an injury occasioned 
by being struck on the head with a club in the hands of some 
bandit. No one would blame the eaves for an injury of this 
kind, while almost every one would hold the bandit responsible 
for what he had done, the bandit being considered a free moral 
agent who willed and chose to do what he did, while the eaves 
had no will and therefore could not be held accountable for the 
harm they caused. 

This position is fully in accordance with the theory that 
has prevailed for thousands of years, during all which time 
people have been talking and preaching about free will — and 
they have believed in it during all this time, and they believe 
in it to day. However, there are many thinking men at present 
that take a different view of this subject of free moral agency 
and moral accountability from the one just noticed. To all ap- 
pearances men are constantly doing as they will and as they 
choose, but these appearances are deceiving and they come 
from a very superficial view of the whole matter. We see very 
clearly, when we come to reflect, that when men do what they 
will, they also do what they must. To believe in free moral 
agency, is practically to deny the existence of God, at least of 
such a God as Christians believe in. If God created the world, 
he made it undoubtedly as he wanted it, and if he did so, he 
alone is responsible for the world's being what it is. We have 
no reason to believe, and no record that would lead us to believe 



306 PUNISHMENT. 

that God made the good part of the creation, while some other 
being made the bad part. No, God made the whole world and 
everything in it, and there is no evidence that he himself looks 
upon any part of his work as a failure, or as being incomplete or 
wicked in any sense. 

It is a well-known fact that many of our best thinkers begin 
to doubt the responsibility of men for their conduct to a large 
extent. It begins to be better understood than ever before that 
men never make themselves ; they come into the world as 
they are, the product of forces entirely outside of their own con- 
trol. If a man is bad, it is because he was born bad, because 
his ancestors were bad. or because he was made bad afterwards 
through influences and agencies for which he is not in any 
sense responsible. The same laws and agencies that produced 
the eaves also produced the bandit, and the one should not be 
punished for what is done any more than the other should. We 
would not think of punishing a stone that happened to be in 
our way and over which we had stumbled and fallen. We 
would hardly be so foolish as to whip a horse that had care- 
lessly stepped upon our toes, or even one that had willfully 
harmed us in some other way. What better reason would we 
have for punishing a boy for some wrong he had done, either 
willfully or otherwise ? He is simply a bad boy, and if he 
were not so, he would not be doing bad things. But we know 
very well that the bad boy is not to be blamed for being bad. 
The ones to be blamed, and the only ones that are really respon- 
sible are his parents and ancestors, together with those who 
taught him, who influenced him, who helped make him what 
he is. They are clearly the offending party in such cases. To 
illustrate farther, we ask, is a stubborn or a timid horse to be 
blamed for being such, and does whipping do him the slightest 
good ? Every sensible man knows that every blow makes mat- 
ters worse. A man might as well whip a log as a stubborn 
horse, for one has just as much free will as the other. It is ab- 
solutely impossible for such a horse to move before he does 



PUNISHMENT. 



307 



move. What is true of bad horses is equally true of bad men. 
No man is his own creator or designer ; he simply is what he 
is, and as he is, and that he is so, is not any fault of his own. 
Society and government are more to blame for a man's being 
what he is and for doing what he does than he is himself. 

The point I make, finally, is that all punishments are worth- 
less and wrong — and above all things that they do not harmonize 
with the religion that Christ has taught and which so many peo- 
ple profess to accept and believe. I am glad to notice that people 
are coming to have much less use for punishments and revenge 
than people had some centuries since. I am glad to notice also 
that the God described in the Old Testament is not the Supreme 
Being that intelligent men believe in to-day. Let us banish 
from our minds forever that antiquated notion that we must 
have government, that we must have punishment, and that 
without these things there would be no peace or comfort for the 
living. 

But admitting that the culprit should be punished, by whom 
shall the punishment be administered ? Who has the authority 
under God or man that makes him the master, the judge and 
the executioner of the culprit ? It may be replied, that it is any 
one who happens to be the representative of the state or of the 
law. But where does such a representative get his right to 
punish and inflict pain, to bring sorrow or distress upon a fellow 
mortal who no doubt is in every sense as good and as great a 
man as his tormentor ? I again call attention to the fact that no 
man can excuse himself for the crimes he commits merely be- 
cause he happens to be an officer of the state. That does not 
lessen his guilt in the slightest. A man's position in society 
cannot change the nature of his offence, otherwise a man sup- 
posed to have a good character would never be punished for 
his crimes. Whether a man is either in office or out, he is 
precisely the same man, and in all cases he ought to be held 
equally responsible for what he does. The law has no power to 
change anything. What an officer may rightfully do, any other 



308 



PUNISHMENT. 



man not an officer might rightfully do under the same circumstances- 
— there is no possible way of getting around that. If it is to be 
done, and if it is well done when it is done, it matters not in the 
least who does it, and the sooner it is done the better. If the 
culprit is to be killed, what difference does it make whether the 
deed is done by an officer or some one else ? It is the killing that 
the law seeks, and there is no especial virtue in an officer's 
doing the job. 

Finally, it must be evident that with the disappearance of 
punishments for evil-doing, rewards for goodness must also fall. 
If we cease to punish men simply because they have done wrong 
— or rather have done what does not please us — we should also 
cease to reward men simply because they have done something 
that strikes us as being done properly or well. No man should 
be hired to do right, nor should he be rewarded because he has 
done simply his duty. Giving rewards for goodness is taking a 
step towards corruption. No man should be hired or induced to 
do anything merely by the hope of receiving a reward. Goodness 
should be its own reward, and evil should bring, and will bring, its own 
penalty. 



We have thus far been discussing the relations between 
men and men, and we have been considering the claims of 
those who seek to exercise authority over other men. It would 
give the author pleasure also to dwell at length upon the rela- 
tions between man and the lower animals, and to enquire 
whether there is any substantial foundation for the prevailing 
belief that these creatures are made solely for the comfort, 
amusement, and sustenance of the human race, or whether 
their right to existence, and even enjoyment, is not in the 
fullest sense as great as that of the noblest or rarest of hu- 
man beings. But this is neither the time nor the place to dis- 
cuss this matter. Suffice it to say, for the present, that, in the 
author's opinion, the humblest creature that God ever placed 
upon this planet has all the rights and privileges that were ever 
granted to any member of the human family ; and further, if 
the same persistent efforts were put forth to train and educate 



OUR GERMAN ANCESTORS. 



309 



the young of the lower animals that are put forth in educating 
our children, the improvement and progress made by the lower 
orders of creation in the way of intelligence would in a short 
time surpass all belief. 

OUR GERMAN ANCESTORS. 

The old Germans, our remote ancestors, who lived two 
thousand years ago and dwelt in the swamps, forests and fields 
of central Europe, were not untutored savages in the ordinary 
sense of the word. They were doubtless in that transition state 
which we uniformly find in passing from the barbarous to the 
civilized stage of life. Undoubtedly their mode of living and 
doing was of a primitive character, and it belonged to the same 
type as that of all early peoples who have as yet made no ex- 
tensive conquests and no great progress either in art or science, or 
in the acquisition of wealth. Their history in that stage of 
their development is important chiefly because it shows how 
people live and do before they have become corrupted through 
the demoralizing influences of what is known as the arts of civ- 
ilization. It is merely because of the instruction that we may 
receive from such lessons as these that we dwell briefly at this 
time upon the character, methods and beliefs which prevailed 
among the early Germans about the time of the invasion of 
Julius Csesar. 

These Germans lived, thrived and enjoyed life, and yet their 
belief, their methods of business and their manner of doing 
things generally were just the opposite of ours. The most strik- 
ing fact in connexion with their organization as a people was 
their love of freedom and a very noticeable absence of every- 
thing in the nature of what is usually known as force-laws. 
They really had no laws — that is, no laws such as men have in 
civilized lands at the present day. They knew no masters and 
therefore they acknowledged the binding force of no man-made 
laws. There were eo prisons, no executioners ; indeed, they 



310 OUR GERMAN ANCESTORS. 

knew of no such thing as crime. As I have already reminded 
the reader, where there are no laws, there can be no crimes. A 
crime is something which is done against the express terms of 
the law. Every man in those days did as seemed to him proper. 
He did not ignore the convictions, tastes, wishes, feelings and 
sentiments of those with whom he lived ; he was far more 
careful about such matters than we are to-day. He did not 
consult the law to see what he would be permitted to do — as I 
have stated, there were no laws to consult. There were no 
judges, no trials, no lawyers, no bailiffs in those days. No man 
had to consult some higher authority to ascertain what he would 
be permitted to do. Every man did that which seemed good in his 
own eyes. He did as he had been educated to do and as he felt 
inspired to do. He did not follow somebody's lead, nor did he 
concern himself about fashions. He had a character and an 
individuality all his own. He was a full-grown, able-bodied, 
independent, upright man — such a man, unfortunately, as is not 
readily found in our enlightened times. Men had honor then, 
and manhood and magnanimity, but they never thought of 
boasting of such things, nor even of offering their services for a 
price. Then men trusted each other, because men then had 
proved themselves worthy of confidence. Every man was his 
own judge, and such a thing as some one man passing sentence 
on the conduct or merits of some other man had at that time 
never been heard of. If a man was accused or complained of, 
he did not hire a lot of witnesses to prove that he was not 
guilty. No, nothing of that kind was ever dreamed of in the 
good old times of our noble progenitors, the Germans. All a 
man' did under such circumstances, critical as the case would 
be in our days, was to call God to witness or, in other words, to 
make oath, that he was not guilty. That was the end of the 
business— no one dared to dispute his word. In those days there 
was no policeman nor militia company to send for to help out 
one side or the other. One man's word was as good as any 
other man's word. Why should it not be so, not only then but 



OUR GERMAN ANCESTORS. 311 

now? It would be so if every man were known to be, as he 
was in old German times, a man of honor and a gentleman. 
With us, the moment a man is accused his word passes for 
nothing — a most absurd doctrine at best. Among the Germans 
no man lost caste, character or position in any such way. No 
such thing as disgraceful conduct was known. Men in those 
days were very careful what they did and how they did, for 
their standing in community depended entirely upon their con- 
duct and their reputation. There was no state or officer to aid 
them when they got into trouble— they defended themselves, 
with the aid of their relatives and friends. Men in those days 
had true and devoted friends, and they so conducted themselves 
as to show to their fellow men that they were deserving of true 
friendship and devotion. That was an age when principle pre- 
vailed, and good words went farther than fair words. 

They had kings m those days, many kings, but they had no 
master. The king himself was more of a servant of the people 
than a master of any individual. He presided in council, but 
he never presumed to dictate. He gave advice, information and 
instruction, as a father would — that was as far as he was ever 
allowed to go. They had those who presided at trials or investi- 
gations by the people, a kind of judge, but those who served in 
that capacity merely declared the verdict of the council, and 
had no power or authority on their own account. The officers 
of those days, no matter in what capacity they acted, were 
really servants of the public, as all officers should be. The 
people thus assembled in council merely gave their opinion ; 
they never undertook to enforce it, and they had no means of 
doing so, if they had so desired. But in those times men re- 
spected public opinion as men never think of doing in these de- 
generate days of ours. One who disregarded the feelings of 
those with whom he resided, found, like Cain, that his suffer- 
ings were greater than he could bear. 

Disputes were settled mostly by compromise and arbitration 
— there were no law-trials as we have them in these days. 



312 



OUR GERMAN ANCESTORS. 



They had one good way that prevailed all over central and north- 
ern Europe for many centuries, and that was paying a man a 
certain sum when they had injured or wronged either him or his 
family — "composition" it was called. If a man found it necessary 
and proper to kill or maim his neighbor, he gave a good reason 
for it, and then was ready to pay to the one injured or his fam- 
ily the sum that had been established as the price in such cases. 
Our way is radically different. We make the offender pay a 
fine, as the Germans did, but instead of its going to the party 
injured or his family it goes to the state ! All the complain- 
ant gets out of the business is a bill of expense and a great deal 
of vexation of spirit. The practice in later times of letting 
seven or twelve men, called "schoffen" or jurors, decide the case, 
was common for many centuries, and our jury is only a modi- 
fication of this old German institution. Trials, or battles as 
they were called, came later and had features much like those 
of our trials. The object of these trials was to prevent men who 
had been offended from taking the case into their own hands 
and settling their own matter in their own way, as had been 
the case with the Germans in earlier times. 

The old Germans knew nothing of appeals ; if a case was 
decided, it was never brought up for review in any other tri- 
bunal, and there was no delay in having the verdict carried out. 
Whatever was done, was done at once, or in a few hours. As 
there was no man lower in rank than another man, so there was 
no tribunal that was subordinate to some other tribunal. They 
had no trials long drawn out. They aimed at nothing but jus- 
tice. Our aim is usually something entirely different. Our 
trials are ordinarily conducted with a view of allowing one party 
or the other to escape justice. That is the principal object for 
which lawyers are hired, and that is the kind of work they are 
expected to perform. We prate much about justice, but it is 
something so rarely found that our people have lost all idea of 
what justice really is. We have the delays and expense of 



OUR GERMAN ANCESTORS. 



313 



suits, and have come to think it would be impossible to live 
without them. Such is civilization ! 

In matters of vengeance, the individual was his own judge, 
and he did his own work and took the whole responsibility upon 
himself. And why is not this a good way? Why should not 
any one man make as good a judge as any other man ? 

The features we have dwelt upon were mostly those that 
prevailed before the time that Tacitus wrote — one hundred years 
or less after the birth of Christ. In later times great changes 
had taken place, mainly through the influence of association 
with the Romans. The priests at that time had become a 
powerful institution. They accompanied the hosts when they 
went out to battle ; they made the sacrifices and they ex- 
plained the oracles and interpreted the messages from God. 
They became the executioners in case of punishment, where 
offences had been committed. They presided over councils, 
either with or without the king, in times of peace. People 
o beyed the priests, when they would have felt humiliated if 
compelled to obey an ordinary man. They believed they were 
simply obeying God by obeying his messengers or interpreters. 
This shows clearly how concentration of power has arisen 
among men. Priests were our first rulers ; during the Middle 
Ages at least, they were the real sovereigns of Europe. Even 
kings and emperors obeyed them, simply to be able thereby to 
secure their assistance in carrying out political schemes of their 
own. All this is further proof that all modern government is 
but a development of theocracy. A belief in God has been studi- 
ously and persistently cultivated, in order to profit by the delusions which 
such a belief genereites. 

The Germans abhorred above all things a sneaking way and 
an underhanded method of doing business. They were all 
brave men ; what they did they did openly and manfully. 
They feared none but God. Men who have no fears are the last 
men to do wrong. Most of our wickedness has its origin in fear. 
Men kill their enemies because they are afraid of them and 



314 OUR GERMAN ANCESTORS. 

wish to get them out of the way. Even the kings could do 
nothing contrary to the will of the people, for in those days the 
will of the people was law, and nothing else was lair. 

The Germans knew little or nothing of contracts— there 
were no contracts properly called, no obligations, nothing bind- 
ing, because there was no one with power to enforce a con- 
tract, there being nothing like state power then in existence. 
A German, being a freeman, would never consent to be bound by 
any such thing as a promise or contract. He always reserved 
the right to do what he felt ought to be done when the time for 
action came— a very good idea, and one that it would be well 
for the people of the present century to adopt. 

In those days there were none very rich and none very 
poor. Loungers were not tolerated in the community. There 
was no state or public treasury, and no taxes. Every man paid 
his own bills, if he had any to pay. and asked for no assistance 
from any source. 

We have gone over this brief history to show how people 
have lived together in the past, and how they might live at 
present if they chose. In the days of which we have been speak- 
ing men lived for the sake of living, and they lived as a sensible 
man would say that sensible men should. Xow the plans and 
purposes, and of course the methods, are entirely different. 
Then one man was as good as another ; now we have ranks, 
and cliques and castes, and a few men imagine that they are 
better than others. Then men followed the scriptural injunc- 
tion, or one that was perhaps older than the scriptures, that 
men should judge not : now every man, so far as he is able, is 
continually passing his opinion upon the conduct of other men 
and marking out a straight and narrow way which he would 
like to have all men follow except himself. Then every man was 
expected to make his own living ; now people, so far as prac- 
ticable, seek to live by the labors of other people. 

In comparing our method of government with that of our 
ancestors, which shall we call the more perfect of the two ? 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 315 

Can it be said that we have progressed, and that our method is 
really an improvement on the methods followed by the Ger- 
mans of other days ? I should say not. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



Having gone thus far in ascertaining certain facts in con- 
nexion with the affairs of e very-day life, we begin to realize 
that many things which we had all along believed to be proper 
and useful are decidedly the opposite ; we find that govern- 
ment, which we had been taught to regard as something of 
divine origin, is really a human contrivance, designed to aid 
one portion of the race in subjugating another portion, and we 
have ascertained that what we formerly believed to be God's 
work, or the doings of God's chosen representative, the state, is 
merely the work of common mortals like ourselves in every in- 
stance. Now, having learned these and a great many other 
things in the same direction, the question that naturally arises 
is this : What are we going to do about it ? What can we do 
about it, or what should we do about it '? If things are con- 
fessedly wrong, and known to be wrong, must we consent to 
their continuance for an indefinite period in the future, merely 
because we have always done so in the past? The answer to 
this question will of course vary according to the character 
and make-up of the individual from whom the reply is ex- 
pected. If a man is a coward or a slave, and is content to re- 
main a coward and a slave, his reply will be something like 
this : " Better let well enough alone ; things are going along 
badly enough, it is true, but they might be worse ; what we 
want is peace, we must have peace, even if we die by it. " On 
the other hand, one who feels himself to be a man and who is 
bound to maintain the dignity and attitude that belongs to a man 
under all circumstances, no matter how adverse, would take 
an entirely different view of the matter. He would say : "I 
will neither countenance nor endorse what I know to be wrong. 



316 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

I may not rebel, but still I will not submit — I will not lick the 
hand that smites me. I will at least protest, if I do no more. 
No one. not even God in heaven, can deprive me of that priv- 
ilege. " If there is any divine right that man has. it is the 
right of protesting when he knows he has been wronged. To 
petition is the privilege sometimes conceded to slaves, but to 
protest m the inalienable right of every freeborn man, woman and 
child. 

Those who have read the foregoing pages of this work, and 
who have considered well the statements which the author has 
made, must certainly agree with him in saying that many 
things as they are found at present in civilized life are palpably 
and positively wrong. But suppose they are so. what is to be 
done ? I have already indicated one thing that every man liv- 
ing can always do, and that is to protest. Protesting is a sort of 
negative resistance, but it is a powerful element in the end. It 
is not so swift or so terrible as vengeance, but it is always more 
certain and more effective in producing results. All the rem- 
edies for evils in social life, thus far. have uniformly been the 
result of the protests of men in the first place. A few protests 
perhaps avail little — but a few always lead to additional pro- 
tests, and when the protesters come to be in the majority, a 
change is pretty sure to follow. People can and will change 
anything, they can and will remove any burden, they can and 
will suppress any wrong, when they come to realize that it is a 
burden and a wrong, and naturally decide that it must be 
removed. 

I very well understand that the disease under consideration 
is constitutional, or in other words, it is national, and it cannot 
be cured by swallowing a few doses of some popular pain-killer. 
This disease has been slowly developing, not for a few years 
simply, but for centuries : and it will take as many cen- 
turies more, no doubt, to remove the causes of the decline and 
finally bring the patient back to a normally sound and healthy 
state. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



317 



But if we decide that a change in our manner of living and 
doing should be made, when is a good time to begin ? In my 
humble judgment, the best time that we shall ever find is 
now. There is no use of promulgating new ideas unless they 
are applied and put into practice. 

Of course, so long as the general condition of things remains 
as it is. our laws and our system of government must remain 
substantially unchanged. It is impossible, by any effort, to de- 
stroy the harmony which prevails in all the operations both of 
nature and man. But it is not a fact, as many suppose, that one 
thing was made to match some other thing. Things develop 
together, but they never lose their individuality or independ- 
ence. There is no such thing as one thing following or preced- 
ing another, or being made for another. But while it is true 
that no one thing is made for another, or because of another's 
existence, it is true, nevertheless, that it very often happens 
that one state of facts implies another state of facts. It follows, 
for instance, that so long as men have property, and an ex- 
travagant desire to get property, there must be laws and gov- 
ernment, with soldiers and policemen to secure people in the 
so-called peaceable enjoyment of that property. If we had no 
laws and no government, we could not have any such thing as 
property. Men would have no title, no defensible claim to 
property, since titles and valid claims are founded solely upon 
the authority of the state. If we had no property, we certainly 
could have no wealth, and if wealth were wanting, many insti- 
tutions that have their origin in the demands of wealth would 
be entirely unknown. With the disappearance of wealth, all 
desire for wealth, all selfishness, which arises chiefly from the 
struggle for riches, would also cease to exist. And if wealth 
were unknown, one of the chief causes of crime would be re- 
moved, since most of our crimes are connected in some way 
with violations of the rights of property. Even domestic 
troubles, and all offences connected with domestic ties and ob- 
ligations, arise mainly from our ideas of ownership. The father 



318 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



imagines that he owns his children and the husband that he 
owns his wife, and hence the sensitiveness of both the father 
and the husband in regard to anything that is supposed to be an 
infringement upon their sacred rights. If men did not believe 
that they owned their wives, we would have no such crime as 
adultery, and we would not hear of the murders, suicides and 
other tragedies that arise either directly or remotely from what 
men consider their legal and moral rights in such cases. With 
wealth, poverty likewise would disappear, and if poverty ceased 
to exist another fruitful source of many of our crimes and 
miseries would be removed. 

Again, as we have seen, if we had no laws and no govern- 
ment, crime, with all its accompaniments, would be unknown. 
Crimes are the creations of law ; what the laws do not forbid 
cannot be a crime in the eyes of the people. 

Every nation which has reached such an advanced stage of 
civilization as we have now reached will have just such a civil- 
ization as prevails in Europe and America at present. To have 
civilization, men must have laws and government in the first 
place. There must be power, subjugation, slavery. "What is 
earned by the many must be grasped and appropriated by the 
few. There must be interest, profits, rents and taxes, and 
these can only be collected when the power exists somewhere 
with which to enforce their collection. No man pays any of 
these charges unless under compulsion, and compulsion implies 
the application of law and force. No man makes a practice 
of parting with his earnings for the benefit solely of others, un- 
less he feels the necessity of doing so. He pays only under coer- 
cion. 

It cannot be too well borne in mind that every feature 
that we find in our present state of enlightenment and 
so-called culture belongs where we find it, and it must be 
looked upon as indispensable, so long as that state continues to 
exist. We find law, government, police, jails, prisons, gibbets, 
wealth, luxury, penury, misery, crime, turmoil, and troubles of 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 319 

all kinds. All these things are found at one and the same time, 
and they are necessarily the complements of each other. No 
one is the cause of the other, no one either precedes or follows the 
other; all things are subject to the law of development —they 
grow, they come forward, just as the organs of the human 
body make their appearance together. The hands of any in- 
dividual are as old as the ears, and the liver and lungs are as 
old as the heart. I know it is claimed by comparative physiolo- 
gists that some organs are wanting in the earliest stage of in- 
dividualized existence, but I apprehend that this means simply 
that they are not able to perceive or recognize such organs. I 
find no reason to believe that any part of the complete man is 
any older than some other part. It may not be amiss to add 
that no one thing ever becomes another thing : there never 
was a time when any creature or any thing began to exist, nor 
will there ever come a time when it will cease to exist. There 
never was a time when men belonged to a species that they do 
not belong to now. or. in other words, when they were what 
they are not. There may have been a time when men were 
nearer to apes than they are at present, but there never could 
have been a time when they actually were apes. As a species, 
men must be at least as old as the apes. 

Civilization also implies just what we find still further, 
namely : that large bodies of men must congregate and asso- 
ciate together in an organized form. Without large cities the 
world could not possibly afford such a state of things as we 
have at present. We could not even have a state, with its laws, 
its rules and its governors, unless we had large cities. Indeed, 
the origin of the state is to be found in the city. While the 
German people had no cities, they had no state properly so- 
called. People must have a fixed abode and they must concen- 
trate in some manner, before they can be said to constitute a 
state in the ordinary sense of the term. People in the wander- 
ing or pastoral stage never accumulate great wealth or acquire 
great power. Strength only comes from the combining of 



320 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



forces, and where there is no such combination, there can be no 
accumulation of power. Even a people whose main pursuit is 
agriculture never clevelopes any remarkable energies or any 
particular concentration of force. The power and influence of 
man in this world has always been concentrated in the cities — 
such as Babylon, Nineveh, Troy, Carthage. Rome, Athens, 
Venice, Paris, and even London. 

So, the first step towards improvement in the affairs of men 
would be to induce them to live more in the country and less in 
cities than they do at present. Small villages or country com- 
munities are easily governed — in fact, they need no government 
at all. Everything done might be and should be a matter of 
agreement on the part of those interested, and no coercion 
or compulsion should be used under any conditions or any 
circumstances. But large bodies of men, on the other hand, 
need to have numerous rules and regulations to keep them in 
order, and there must be power lodged somewhere to enforce 
such rules. Uprisings and revolutions, it must be remembered, 
uniformly begin in the cities. If people lived in small com- 
munities, each one having his own sphere of action, with 
the necessity of earning his own livelihood without any aid from 
the state or any other outside source, there could be very little 
occasion or opportunity for troubles or violations of any kind. 
The troubles come when people seek to make slaves of their 
fellows and live upon the product of other people's earnings ; 
these things come also when men are anxious to become rich and 
gain power over others ; when it is fashionable to make a dis- 
play, and when it is the custom for one class of men to make 
laws and rules of conduct for other men to observe. 

I can very well see that so long as society is constituted as 
it is, and while the aims and ambitions of men remain as they 
are in all civilized countries at the present time, it is useless to 
make new laws or to seek to better the condition of men 
through the medium of any change in some one or more depart- 
ments of government. As a rule men will have such laws and 

20 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 321 

such government as they want and deserve. There is no use of 
trying to doctor a case like this, until a radical change is made 
in the patient's manner of living and doing. 

Men must first be regenerated, through some means or 
some agency, before they can have a better conception of 
things, and before they can be brought to consent to a radical 
improvement in their conduct and action. Through all time, 
thus far, going back as far as history furnishes any account, the 
main troubles of this world have arisen from the desire of a 
certain portion of the people to live and thrive at the expense of their 
fellows. When men come to believe that they ought to earn 
their own living and that they have no right under any terms 
or conditions to live at the expense of others, or to depend on 
the assistance of others, then we shall have peace and happi- 
ness, and not till then. 

But while we could not effect a radical cure of the patient 
whose case we have under consideration until a complete regen- 
eration was accomplished, a great improvement might be secured 
by making only a comparatively few changes in the present 
methods of doing business. 

The first thing is to abolish the legislature, and let every 
community hereafter make its own rules and regulations. 
There should be no such thing as state power, state laws and 
state interference. We have seen in the preceding pages what 
state rule is — it is the control of a few designing and selfish 
men who manage everything with the sole aim of advancing 
their own interests or, in other words, with the view of feather- 
ing their own nests and the nests of their friends. What few 
regulations may be deemed necessary in any community could 
be made as occasion requires and by the agreement of all. No 
man should be punished in any manner for what he refuses to 
do ; neither should the community be made to suffer from his 
wrong-doing. When a man does not like the society in which 
he finds himself, he should depart ; and if the community does 
not like any one of its members, after a fair trial has been made 



322 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

to ascertain what manner of man he is, he should be ostracised 
at once. By following some such system of elimination as this, 
the bad men in time would all disappear and those who re- 
mained would find themselves congenial, and therefore all 
would live together in peace and harmony. 

If the state protects no one, if it defends no titles and 
assumes to give none, if it allows and permits every one to con- 
duct his own business and manage his own affairs as he pleases, 
if it does not pretend to compel the observance of any contract 
or agreement, if it does not aid the strong in enforcing hard 
bargains made with the weak, if it does not aid in collecting 
debts, either honest or otherwise, if each man is compelled to 
collect his own interest, his own rent and secure his own pound 
of flesh by his own unaided exertions, then all the supports of 
wealth would tumble at once and an equilibrium, or something 
near an equilibrium, would be restored at once. 

Without the aid and interposition of the state, no contract 
would be enforced, and therefore very few contracts would be 
made. Without the endorsement of the state, slavery could 
not exist for a moment, because the slave and his master would 
have equal rights and they would always stand upon even 
ground. We could hardly, without the power of the state, have 
such an institution as hired labor, for the laborer could not col- 
lect pay for his services and the employer could not depend 
upon the engagement made by the employee. Everything 
would be mutual and strictly a matter of agreement. There 
would be no coercion, no punishing for non-fulfilment of contract. 
Some compensation might be made for services rendered, but 
it would be made willingly and cheerfully. Above all things 
there would be no long-time contracts of any kind, and from 
that fact alone men would avoid a vast amount of misery. 

One of the most important steps towards improvement 
would be to abolish all titles to land — certainly all claims to any 
land beyond that portion which the community might concede 
to each and every family for the sole purpose of its gaining a 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



323 



living. All our titles to land to-day came originally from the 
state, and if the state falls or is dispensed with, as it ought to be 
dispensed with, because it is an expensive, dangerous and worthless 
machine, then all ownership of land would also fall as a matter 
of course. It should not be forgotten that the one who owns 
the land controls the laws and the destinies of men. 

People ought to begin to see and understand that because 
things are as they are, they need not necessarily remain as they 
have been forever. What we ought to do is to apply our reason 
and exercise that judgment and common sense which God has 
given us, and see if the present way of doing things cannot be 
improved upon. We need not be afraid of inquiry nor of get- 
ing information that we cannot use. The truth never injures any 
one. Is it not a self-evident fact that the more light we have, 
the better we can see ? 

So, in regard to questions of government, crimes, discipline, 
punishment, methods of education, rules of conduct and matters 
of society generally, let us inquire, investigate and consider. 
Let us continue to inquire, let us agitate, let us seek for the 
light, and in a quiet, and yet earnest and determined way, let 
us move on. Without agitation there is no progress. Martin 
Luther was an agitator, so was John Knox — so was Paul the 
Apostle, and so was Christ himself, in a quiet, orderly way. To 
agitate does not necessarily mean to make war — certainly it 
does not mean so in any literal or sanguinary sense. 

Let us see, finally, if we cannot dispense with some of our 
gods, as the Greeks and the Romans did with their gods many 
centuries ago. Let us dispense with our deities, for a time at 
least, and see if we do not find the change to be an improvement. 
Let us dismiss our god of Justice, our god of Vengeance and god 
of War ; let us dispense with our national flag, our sense of 
honor, our state education and several other things in that direc- 
tion — and above all, let us banish Mammon from our midst 
forever. So long as we fall prostrate, like the heathen devotee, 
and worship our rulers believing all the absurd things that they 



324 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

endeavor to instil into our minds about flags, education, re- 
ligion, laws, honor and our duty to our beloved country, we 
must expect to be trampled in the dust, and we must often be 
content either to feed upon husks or go to bed supperless. 

In the first place, let us have higher, holier and better aims 
than we have had thus far. It may, and probably will, take 
centuries to accomplish what is desired, but the time to begin 
this great work is now. Let us determine what is desirable, and 
set about doing it at once. A little to-day, a little to-morrow — 
it is the summing up of little things running through a long period of 
time that brings forth the most astonishing results. By such slow 
and imperceptible processes the hills are reared and the rocks are 
formed. It may be true, as already said, that we cannot dis- 
pense with the state all at once, and probably not for a long 
time to come, but let us make it our purpose to give the state 
less and less to do and afford it less and less opportunity to ac- 
quire power. Let us circumscribe its action and prevent it from 
soaring aloft, as it has been doing for some centuries past. And 
as the state comes to have less and less to do, it will gradually 
decay, and finally it will disappear and be forgotten forever. 
For some things there ought to be resurrection — but for gov- 
ernment, in any manner or form, tliere ought to be none. If there 
is any meeting of delegates for legislative purposes, let them 
meet on call, and then very rarely, as occasion may require. 
The work of legislation being done almost wholly by the com- 
munities, there would be very little indeed left for the state to be 
concerned about. Public expenses would be cut down to almost 
a nominal sum, and from that one source of improvement alone 
great good would certainly result. 

Above all things I toould remove the non-producing class entirely. 
I would have no drones in the hive ; the two extremes in 
society, the drones and the slaves, those who do none of the 
work and those who do all of it, are out of place in any social 
organization that men may have yet had occasion to form. 

Of course if the just principle should once more prevail that 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 325 

each man should earn his own livelihood, the drones would soon 
become an extinct race simply for want of subsistence. Nearly 
all our burdens as citizens arise from the fact that w T e are con- 
stantly called upon to labor for other people, and without com- 
pensation ; we are daily producing what others will consume. 

If the doctrine I am advocating should ever be accepted and 
put into practice by the people, there would be an end to 
interest, rents, profits, and per cents, generally. The idea 
that money could produce money, or that property could gener- 
ate property, would become obsolete. The only possible way by 
which money can produce money is by one man's taking what another 
man earns — as is the case with rents. If money can of itself pro- 
duce money, how does it come that the labor and sweat of some- 
body is still a necessary factor ? If money can produce money, 
by some feat of the alchemists, by some power of enchantment 
or by some mysterious process in public economy, how does it 
•come that as a matter of fact money has never done so ? If land 
produces money, even without the help of nature, what is the 
need of labor ? The owner would not need to let his farm and 
be compelled to divide with some renter. He might have the 
whole of the proceeds. But what would the proceeds be ? 
Trees, perhaps, or weeds. But it takes years to produce trees, 
and even then they are not money. Without the employment 
of labor, the trees would remain trees, and hence practically 
valueless. Labor alone is wealth — or rather without labor, 
wealth can never be made available. Nature lends a powerful 
helping hand, but even nature never produces available or 
practical wealth. It always leaves something for man to do. 
Even where it produces game and wild fruits and berries, the 
game has to be caught and the fruits have to be found and 
gathered before they can be eaten. 

All that is needed to produce all the changes that have 
been mentioned, with all the blessings that will necessarily fol- 
low, is the adoption of this one fundamental law : Thou shalt not 



326 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

be another mart's master. That is the eleventh commandment that 
Moses, or the Lord, seems to have quite overlooked. 

It is a very easy thing for a people to change their gov- 
ernment or even to dispense with it entirely. Only convince 
a people that something really ought to be done, and they will 
go at it and do it directly. We have such a state of things in 
government as we find at present merely because people think it 
is all right as it is, and that admitting that some things are 
wrong, a remedy is impracticable. We have just such a state, 
just such laws, and just such burdens as the people think we 
ought to have ; and just such iniquities prevail as the people 
imagine that they necessarily must submit to. People like a 
strong government and a great state, and they believe it is ab- 
solutely necessary to have such things in order to ensure their 
own safety. Indeed, the patriotism of some people is astound- 
ing. They know it is terribly expensive, but they are willing 
to help pay the bill after all. They affect to complain of high 
taxes, but they like high taxes, so long as they can see big works 
going on. They are blinded or dazzled by the splendor they 
behold. They think that a great and powerful state is the only 
one that can be glorious. But people will wake up some day 
and change their minds, and then they will want an entirely 
new order of things — and rest assured, what the people want, they 
will eventually obtain. When the people decide to give the state 
less power, or no power at all, it will surely have less power or 
no power at all as the case may be. The people will not make 
this change by passing a law. The people are not accustomed 
to putting their will on paper — indeed, they have no power of 
doing so ; they have a way, however, of having their wishes 
understood and enforced without putting them on paper. It 
may be noticed that there is, as already said, a great deal less gov- 
erning and punishing both in schools and families even to-day 
than there was a short time since. This change was not 
effected by the passage of a law, but by a revolution in the senti- 
ments of the public on the subject of governing and punishing. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 327 

It is only a step farther to carry this change of sentiments into 
the management of state affairs, and when that change comes 
there will be far less governing and punishing in that direction 
also. It is these silent revolutions that are the most irresistible, 
and it is such revolutions alone that I would advocate and en- 
courage. 

Another way of improving affairs and the general condi- 
tion of things is to dispense with certain institutions that with 
us are becoming far too common. If we have no jails and 
prisons, we will find that we shall soon have no one to put in 
them. On the other hand, while the state has these institutions 
at hand, it always finds plenty of people with which to fill 
them. So it is with almshouses, with insane asylums and re- 
treats for the feeble-minded ; it is well known that the faster 
these institutions multiply, the faster the number of their in- 
mates increases. That is history the world over. Provide for 
paupers, and you will have paupers ; provide for criminals, and 
you will have criminals ; provide for war, and you are certain 
at last to have war. 

But what would you do without government ? That is what 
many would naturally ask. How would you get along without 
a ruler or master of some kind ? That is something that people 
who trust entirely to old notions are not able to see or under- 
stand. That would be a question which a slave would naturally 
ask — one who had always been a slave and who never knew 
what it was to direct his own movements and follow the dictates 
of his own judgment. How would he be able to move through 
this world without the aid or interposition of some other human 
being ? Such a man would very naturally say that he could not 
possibly get along without some one on whom he could lean for 
support, some one who would take the pains to direct him in 
his movements each succeeding day and hour. Such a man 
would very naturally believe that the world would resolve itself 
into its original elements, if there should be no such thing as 
slavery, with masters to govern and protect the slaves. Slaves 



328 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



never know any other way, never imagine there could be any 
other way. Just so it is with us to-day. We are so accustomed 
to our condition of abject slavery and we feel so subdued and de- 
pressed by our constant submission to authority, that we could 
not possibly conceive how we could survive without support 
and protection from some outside source. It will be remem- 
bered that we had similar ideas about negro slavery and 
corporal punishment fifty years ago. We thought we must 
have slavery and that black folks were fitted only for bond- 
age. We thought children must be whipped, both at home 
and at school, and that they could not exist for a moment with- 
out a master. In earlier times the wife came in for her share 
of punishment, and many really believed that she could not be a 
good wife unless she was given a whipping occasionally. People 
said of whipping then, as people say of government now, that 
there could be no living without it ! So there was whipping in 
homes, whipping in schools, whipping in prisons, whipping in 
the army, whipping in the streets. But it now begins to dawn 
upon the minds of men that instead of having a master in 
all they do, it is better that they should learn to take care of 
themselves ; they need no government, no master. 

Of course we cannot make people see what they do not and 
will not see ; we cannot prove anything for people that will 
not be convinced. The will has much to do with belief— it has 
all to do with it. 

Men will say "you tear down and do not build up. " Why, 
I have heard that story for fifty years, from the time when I 
first began thinking on my own responsibility. But if a man 
should ascertain that he was on the wrong road and could not 
possibly reach his destination in that way, is it wise to continue 
in that direction, although possibly he might not be able to dis- 
cover the right way ? He might do better by trying another route, 
but he could not possibly do worse than to continue on as he be- 
gan. A wise man would stop at once, turn around and see if 
he could not find a better way. People cannot deny either my 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



329 



premises or my conclusions ; but they are frightened at the re- 
sults, because to them they are so new ! As a rule, the world 
does not take to new ideas — it never has had any fancy for 
s uch things. So far from that, it has always been ready to cru- 
cify the man, no matter how good nor how great he might 
be, who has the presumption to advance a new thought or 
advocate a new departure. 

Nevertheless, I still hold the position I have taken, and feel 
able to defend it against any and all opposers. I still insist that 
the great want of this world is not charity, not assistance, not 
protection, not sympathy, not compassion, not government, not 
laws, not morals, but that training and instruction which ren- 
ders men self-reliant and independent. If we help men at all, 
it should be merely in order to enable them to help themselves. 
God helps those who help themselves, and refuses to help all 
others. 

People should be educated, trained, encouraged and accus- 
tomed to help themselves. The more help people get, as a rule, 
the more rapidly they will be hurried along the road that leads 
to the poorhouse. Help adds to the baneful influence which 
indolence exerts upon men, and it affords no remedy for any of 
the evils of which society complains. Nature evidently in- 
tended, if it ever intended anything, that every creature born 
into the world, after passing the period of infancy and immatu- 
rity, should help itself, and those that cannot meet that condition 
in life must ultimately go under. As a general thing, all the help 
received by an able-bodied man is a damage to him in the end. 



There is a growing sentiment in this country that we are 
governed too much, and some have progressed so far in their 
discoveries in the domain of truth that they are able to perceive 
that we ought to have no government at all. Inquiry and in- 
vestigation lead to new thoughts and to new conceptions of the 
rights and duties of men, and these again lead to discontent and 
dissatisfaction. So long as the Americans had no other ambition 



330 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



than to get rich, and so long as the boundless plains of the west 
were open to every man who had surplus energies at his com- 
mand, very little attention was paid to matters of government 
by the ordinary citizen. But now the far west belongs with 
things of the past, and ambitious men must remain where they 
are and make the most of life under the conditions by which 
they find themselves surrounded. 

A great mistake is made by those who imagine that the 
history of America is to be unlike the history of other nations 
of the world, and that in a democracy like ours, remedies for 
all evils can be secured through the operations of the ballot 
box. As a nation we are only a little more than a hundred 
years old, and yet we have progressed far enough to see that 
the ballot box is the source of more evil than good. A very 
large proportion of those who vote are governed merely by con- 
siderations of party affiliation: many follow some leader, and 
many are controlled in their action by motives of fear or a feel- 
ing of dependence upon others. It has become a thing un- 
known in this country that any considerable number of voters 
should cast their ballots, at any election, simply according to 
the dictates of their own unbiased judgment. 

Under these circumstances, we have just such a state of 
affairs as might naturally be expected. A few designing, saga- 
cious and unscrupulous men control every election. They be- 
gin with the caucus, to which the people as a whole rarely give 
much attention. Through the machinery of the caucus the 
leaders secure the nomination of such candidates as they prefer, 
leaving the people on election day with nothing but a choice 
between two parties. Many voters are purchased, many are 
intimidated, and many are deceived in various ways. With 
such a state of affairs, is it not easy to see that wicked men. 
who have no scruples and who stop at nothing that will ensure 
a victory, have wholly the advantage? Cannot a Bill Tweed 
control a great city, or a great state even, whenever he chooses ? 

No, I see no promise of safety in the ballot box for any 
great length of time. When a people become corrupt or in- 
dolent, the ballot box affords no permanent remedy or relief. 
It will answer for a certain length of time — it is a temporary 
expedient and nothing more. The time must come, and at no 
distant day, when the patient, a wronged, oppressed and enslaved 
people, must experiment with some more drastic treatment than 
any that can be secured through the ballot box. We must have 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



331 



revolution precisely as they have had it in every other country 
— the only question being how long can the catastrophe be post- 
poned? When a nation begins to go down hill in its mad 
career, it is absolutely impossible that it should stop and turn 
back. No, nations always go about so far, and then there 
comes something different. People who imagine that human 
nature has changed in the slightest in a hundred, nay in a thous- 
and years, greatly deceive themselves. All nations, like all in- 
dividuals, pass through substantially the same stages of transi- 
tion — there is the period of infancy, of maturity, of old age, and 
finally death ! Nations last longer, much longer than individ- 
uals, but none lad forever. 

What happened in Paris at the close of the eighteenth cen- 
tury is liable to happen, I may say is certain to happen, in 
America some time during the twentieth. Wait till a large por- 
tion of our people become desperately hungry or desperately 
mad, and then see what can withstand their rage ! The signs, 
omens and partents presaging coming evil are certainly numer- 
ous enough, if the people could only interpret their meaning. 
Every strike is ominous and is a revolution in embryo. Strikes 
seem as little things that are readily put down by the strong 
arm of the state, but eventually there is sure to come a strike of 
such dimensions that a few squads of Pinkerton's detectives or 
a few regiments of state militia will not be found equal to the 
emergency. The Chicago convention was a portent that should 
not be regarded lightly. Every crime that is committed is also 
an omen — a protest against the present trend of society and 
against the prevailing methods of doing business. 

The plaintiff rests. 



832 



LIST OF TOPICS. 



LIST OF TOPICS. 



PAGES. 

Intocluctory - - 5-18 
Power of Thought - - 16-24 
This Godless Age - 25-34 
Right. Duty and Justice 35-46 
Cause and Effect - - 47-58 
The Mission of Man - 59-64 
The Presumption of Man 65-67 
The Obtrusiveness of Man 68-69 
Status of the Individual 70-75 
The Doctrine of Revenge 75-78 
Progress of Civilization 78-83 
The Matter of Belief - 84-87 
Freedom for Freemen - 88-95 
Compuls. and Obedience 96-105 
Equality and Slavery 106-113 
Our Rightful Master 114-118 
Master and Servant - 119-122 
Right of Self-Control 123-126 
Rights of Citizens - 127-130 
Fashion and Slavery 131-136 
Borrowing andBond'ge 137-140 
The Right to Rule - 140-151 
Rep. Government - 152-161 



PAGES. 

Doctrine of Infallibility 161-169 
Rule of the Majority 170-173 
Politics and Party Rule 174-177 
The State in Fact - 177-188 
The State and its Power 189-192 
The Policy of the State 193-197 
State Interference - 198-206- 
Failings of the State 207-211 
Crimes of the State - 212-224 
Law of Self-Defense 225-228 
Crimes of the Court 229-234 
State Education - - 235-245 
The Nature of Law - 246-250 
Aspects of Law - - 251-261 
The Makers of Law - 262-267 
Written Laws - - 268-273 
Excess of Law - - 274-278 
Tithes and Taxation 279-289 
Punishment - - - 290-308 
Our German Ancestors 309-314 
Concluding Remarks 315-331 
List of Topics 332 
List of Books 333-336 



LIST OF BOOKS. 



333 



The following books have been of service to the author in 
the preparation of this work. The titles of the German and 
French works are given in English for the convenience of 
readers — not always rendered fully and accurately, but suffici- 
ently so to indicate the character of the work. In a few cases, 
as Mill's Liberty, the work which the author happened to possess 
was a translation from the original. 

GERMAN. 

Savigny's Hist, of Rom Law. 6 vols. — Frey's French Civil Law, 
3 vols. — Zacharias' French Civil Law. 4 vols. — Eichhorn's Hist, of 
Germ. Law. 4 vols. — Mittermaier's Germ. Private Law. — Stahl's 
Histoiy of Law, 3 vols. — Hugo's Juristic Encyclopedia, 5 
vols. — Zumpt's Roman Civil Law. 2 vols. — Flegler's History 
of Democracy. — Hermann's Economical Problems. — Stammler's 
Economy and Law. — Bluntschli's Mod. and Middle Age 
State. — Rupp's Proof in Criminal Cases. — Sugenheim's Over- 
throw of Slavery. — Dahlmann's Pol. Science. — Zoepel's Hist, of 
Germ. Rights. — Marezoll's Germ. Crim. Law. — Sachse's Evidence. 
— Stein's Possession of the Soil. — Heffter's Germ. Crim. Law. — 
Walter's Nat. -Law and Politics. — Bekker's Germ. Crim. Law. — 
Maurer's Tillage Const. — Zumpt's Rom. Jury, 2 vols. — Manzonf s 
Relig. — Twesten's Rel. . Pol. and Social Ideas, 2 vols. — Zoeppel's 
Antiquities of Germ. Law, 3 vols. — Siegel's Hist, of Germ. Law. — 
Maurus' Mod. Taxation. — Heffter's European Law of Nations. — 
Deurer's Hist, of Rom. Law. — Maurus' Nat. Econ. — Schmidt- 
Weisenfels Hist, of Mod. Riches. — Feuerbach's Phil, of Future. — 
Rochholz' Faith and Customs. 2 vols. — Fischer's Hist, of Despot- 
ism. — Hoyn's The Old World. — Ahren's Nat.-Law. — Beccaria's 
Crimes and Punishments. — Feuerbach, Selections from Works. — 
Maas, Education- Wisdom Extracts. — Laspeyres' Influence of 
Dwelling on Morals. — Mohl's Preventive Justice, 3 vols. — Malchus' 
Politics, or State Adms., 3 vols. — Walter's Hist, of Germ. Law. — 
Ihering's Struggles for Law. — Dieck's Germ. Private Law. — 
Welcher's Right. State and Punishment. — Bauer's Crim. Law. — 
Stahl's Phil, of Law, 3 vols. — Bauer's Nature-Law. — Roscher's 
Nat. Econ. — Zschokke's Pandora. — Bastiat's Harmonies in Econ., 
2 vols. — Feuerbach's Penal Law. — Keller's Rom. Civil Process. — 
Ferguson's Hist, of Society. — Blume's Germ. Private Law. — 
Rau's Pol. Econ., 2 vols. — Tornau's Moslem Law. — Mittermaier's 
Evidence. — Raumer's Law, State and Politics. — Stein's Admins. — 
Best's Evidence. — Hochster's French Crim. Process. — Hartter's 



334 



LIST OF BOOKS. 



Compensation in Rom. Law. — Haxthausen's Land Laws of Russia. 
— Berner's Germ. Penal Law. — Budinger's Hist, of English Const. 
— Dalcke's Germ. Crim. Law. — Brunner's Origin of the Jury. — 
Zumpt's Rom. Crim. Law, 2 vols. — Maurer's Hist, of Germ. Mark 
Const. — Niebuhr's Ancient Laws and Customs. — Rauseh's Problems 
of Poverty. — Arnold's Culture and Laws of the Romans. — Gneist's 
Right-State and Courts. — Michelsen's Genesis of the Jury. — 
Rauber's Homo Sapiens Ferus. — Hof man's Hist, of Greek and 
Rom. Law. — Wurth's Latest Advances in Prison Management. — 
Zimmermann's Testimony. — Ihering's Joke and Earnest in Juris- 
prudence. — Kirchmann's Labor and Culture. — Sohm's Institutes 
of Rom. Law. — Hucke's Money Problem. — Boehmer's Prison 
Management. — Marx Econ. Doctrines. — Roscher's Pol. Econ. — 
Roscher's Science of Finance. — Roscher's Trade and Industry. — 
Stein's Science of Finance. — Trendelenburg's Gaps in Internat'l 
Law. — Brentano's Rewards of Labor. — Hugo's Hist, of Rom. 
Law, 5 vols. — Midler's Salic Law. — Jancke's Over-population.— 
Mill's Liberty. — Bluntschli's State Ideas. — Gneist's Adminis. Re- 
form. — Michaelis' Organization of Society. — Spielberg's Rights of 
Men.— Stern's God-Idea. — Hartmann's Religion of the Future. — 
Mackay's Anarchists. — Eucken's Contest About Spiritual Life. — 
Unold's Mod. Practical Ethics. — Stirner's The Only One and His 
Property. — Gerecke's Morality.— Haxthausen's Transkaukasia, 2 
vols. — Tangkabel's, Man and His Races. — Roscher's System for 
Care of the Poor. — Biicher's Origin of Pol. Econ. — Roscher's 
Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. — Bluntschli's State 
Doctrines. — Ziegler's Social Democracy. — Bucher's Parliamentar- 
ism. — Schuster's Social Democracy . —Herder's Philosophy of Hist. 
4 vols. — Biichner's Force and Matter.— Bluntschli's Universal 
State-Rights. — Savigny's Law of Possession. — Vering's Rom. 
Private Law. — Maurus' Modern Const. -State. — Michaeli's Organ- 
ization of Society. — Benedy's History of the German People. — 
Romeni's Religion. — Bosch, Social Justice. — Rau's Science of 
Finance. — Stern's Philosophy of Spinoza. — Frary's Demagogues. — 
Stern's Religion of the Future. — Spielberg's Against the Existing 
Order. — Spielberg's Nature-Man. — Sommerf eld's Godless World.— 
Hartmann's Moral Consciousness. — Hartmann's Phil, of Religion 
— Hartmann's Social Problems. — Hartmann's Philosophical 
Questions of the Present. — Hartmann's Crisis of Chris- 
tianity. — Bauer's Hist, of Politics and Culture. — Meyer's Super- 
stitions of the Middle Ages. — Dahlmann's Nirvana. — Biichner's 
Man and His Place in Nature. — Backhaus' All the Earth. — Brod- 



LIST OF BOOKS. 



335 



beck's World of Error. — Milhausen's Bible of the Godless.— 
Grimm's Hist, of the Germ. Language.— Storch's Pol. Econ., 3 
vols.— Mollinger's God-Idea.— Stern's Idea of God — Present and 
Future. — Bebel's Woman and Socialism. — Engel's Origin of the 
Family.— Schippel's Modern Misery. — Maurus' Modern Constitu- 
tion. — Wille's Philosophy of Deliverance. — Kant's Works, 9 
vols.— Fichte's Works, 8 vols.— Frary's National Danger. 

FRENCH. 

Goguet's Origin of Laws, 3 vols. — Proudhon's Federative Prin. 
— Bonald's Works. — DeTocqueville's Democracy in America, 2 
vols. — Bentham on Pun., 2 vols. — Bentham on Legislation, 3 
vols. — Bentham on Judicial Proof, 2 vols. — Girardin's Right to 
Say All. — Girardin's Government the Most Simple. — Barante's 
Constit. Questions. — Sismondi's Constit. of Free People. — Renan, 
The Family. — Proudhon's Justice in Revolution, 2 vols. — Rossi's 
Penal Law. — Guizot's History of Representative Government. 
— Girardin's Right to Punish. — Allemand's Marriage and its 
Results, 2 vols. — Laferriere's French Law, its Hist., 2 vols. — 
Aignan's Jury. — Girardin's Force or Riches. — Sommerard's Hist, 
of Labor. — Guyau's Irreligion of the Future. — Bastiat's Econ- 
omic Sophisms, 2 vols. — Guizot, The Church.— Proudhon's War 
and Peace, 2 vols. — Rousseau's Emile, 4 vols. — Voltaire's Essays 
on Customs of People, 8 vols. — Ortolan's Penal Law. — Beaulieu's 
Science of Finance 2 vols.— Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws. — 
Dumas' Man and Wife. — Coulange's Ancient City. — Helvetius' 
Works, 5 vols. — Migne's Sacred Books ^of All Religions 2 vols. — 
Maquet's Prisons of Europe, 8 vols. 

English. 

Maine's Early Hist, of Institutions.— Maine's Ancient Law. 
Maine's Village Communities. — Dicey's Law of the Const. — Mor- 
gan's Ancient Society.— Amos' Science of Law.— Bagehot's 
Physics and Politics.— Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy.— Spen- 
cers Ceremonial Institutions. — Spencer's Soc. Statics.— Spencer's 
Justice.— Lecky's Rationalism, 2 vols.— Lecky's Moral's 2 vols.— 
Laveleye's Pol. Econ.— Ferris' s Crim. Sociology.— Mill's Pol. 
Econ. — Smith's English Institutions. —Warner's Liberties of 
America.— Smith's Wealth of Nations.— Pritchard's Nat. Hist, 
of Man 2 vols.— Figuier's Prim. Man.— Darwin's Origin of Species. 



336 



LIST OF BOOKS. 



— Darwin's Descent of Man. — Buckle's Civilization, 2 vols. — 
Quatrefages' Human Species. — Spencer's Study of Sociology. — 
Aristotle's Works. — Lubbock's Origin of Civilization. — Maudsley's 
Responsibility in Mental Diseases. — Bain's Mind and Body. — 
Spencer's Pol. Institutions. — Laveleye's Socialism of To-day. — 
Bax' Outlooks from a New Standpoint. — Macmillan's Promotion 
of Happiness. — Bax' Relig. of Socialism. — Morrison's Crime and 
Causes. — Leffing well's Illegitimacy. — Webb's Socialism in Eng- 
land. — Robertson's Mod. Humanists. — Holyoake's Self-Help. — 
Lafargue's Evolution of Property. — Godard's Poverty. — Robert- 
son's Fallacy of Saving. — Naquet's Collectivism. — Laveleye's 
Luxury. — Bax' Ethics of Socialism. — Carpenter's Civilization. 
Morey's Outlines of Rom. Law. — Boston, Anglo Saxon Law. — 
Giff en's Essay on Finance. — Gneist's English Parliament. — Had- 
ley's Rom. Law. — Laveleye's Prim. Property. — Sedgwick's Ethics. 
Tylor's Prim. Culture, 2 vols.— Walker's Pol. Econ.— McCul- 
loch's Pol. Econ. — Reeves English Law, 4 vols. — Blackstone 4 
vols. — Lane's Modern Egyptians. — Spencer's Essays. — Beaulieu's 
Empire of Tsars, 3 vols. — Rawlinson's Ancient Egypt, 2 vols. — 
Rawlinson's Seven Great Monarchies, 3 vols. — Fowler's Progres- 
sive Morality. — Ribot's Diseases of the Will. — Spencer's Progress, 
its Law and Causes. — Pollock's Science of Politics. — Sulley's 
Illusions. — Clifford's Morals. — Fisher's Landholding in England. 
Proctor's Hereditary Traits. — Mill's Representative Government. 
Caird's Orient. Relig. — Flower's Fashion in Deformity. — Volney's 
Ruins. — D'Holbach's System of Nat. — Grove's Correlation of 
Forces. — Stewart's Conservation of Energy. — Montaigne's Essays. 
— Mosheim's Church Hist. 6 vols. — Neander's Church Hist. 10 
vols. — Renan's Life of Christ. — Strauss' Life of Christ. — Feur- 
bach's Essence of Christianity. — Bayle's Dictionary, 4 vols. — 
Wines' Pun. and Reformation. — Spencer's Education. — The 
Federalist. — George's Soc. Problems. — George's Progress and 
Poverty. — Plato's Works. — Beaulieu's Mod. State. 

Many ideas were obtained from the leading magazines and 
reviews. The following encyclopedias were found of great ser- 
vice : Appleton, Britannica, Globe, Chambers and Johnson. 



21 





•MM 



. 




« Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

» o Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide fl 

°^'J'' Treatment Date: Dec. 2004 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
Q , (724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 591 650 A 



